Former Aologiest for Gay Theology

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I try to refrain from decision based on an assumption, again its pure folly and not very wise, you see I am a very unassuming man, chess has taught me that assumptions are very dangerous and not always the wise course to take, its much better to remain flexible and objective until you know the facts, don't you agree?

Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened. But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them. Why can't you?

Originally posted by FMF
Would you be able to make a "moral decision" on violence if there WAS evidence?

again i am failing to see where you have answered my question, How is it possible FMF to make a decision on the basis of NO facts? You have not said. Are we simply to make moral decisions on assumptions, is that what you would have us do? to condemn people with scant knowledge of what they have done? Is that really what you're saying FMF

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I try to refrain from decision based on an assumption, again its pure folly and not very wise, you see I am a very unassuming man, chess has taught me that assumptions are very dangerous and not always the wise course to take, its much better to remain flexible and objective until you know the facts, don't you agree?

Is this somehow part of your justification for refusing to condemn violence against homosexuals?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again i am failing to see where you have answered my question, How is it possible FMF to make a decision on the basis of NO facts? You have not said. Are we simply to make moral decisions on assumptions, is that what you would have us do? to condemn people with scant knowledge of what they have done? Is that really what you're saying FMF

No, I am saying this:

Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened.

But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them.

Why can't you?

Originally posted by FMF
Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened. But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them. Why can't you?

so you agree that basing a decision on little or scant knowledge is unwise and you must
therefore also agree that your continued pestering me to answer a question on the basis of
having little or scant knowledge is therefore an unreasonable request on that basis, is it not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you garre that basing a decision on little or scant knowledge is unwise and you must
therefore also agree that your continued pestering me to answer a question on the basis of
having little or scant knowledge is therefore an unreasonable request on that basis, is it not?

Are you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where it is a fact that it happened?

Originally posted by FMF
No, I am saying this:

Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened.

But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them.

Why can't you?

you have continually pestered someone to answer a question on the basis of having little or no facts, yet you cannot tell us how that person is supposed to make a reasonable or informed decision on the basis of having NO facts and you are therefore asking them to condemn someone of a pure assumption. Is that fair FMF, is it wise FMF?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have continually pestered someone to answer a question on the basis of having little or no facts, yet you cannot tell us how that person is supposed to make a reasonable or informed decision on the basis of having NO facts and you are therefore asking them to condemn someone of a pure assumption. Is that fair FMF, is it wise FMF?

If it turns out that what redbager said is factual, are you able to condemn such violence?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where it is a fact that it happened?

your request was unreasonable wasn't FMF, people cannot make decisions and condemn
others on the basis of NO EVIDENCE can they FMF, its ok to admit it.

Originally posted by FMF
If it turns out that what redbager said is factual, are you able to condemn such violence?

again this is a hypothetical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your request was unreasonable wasn't FMF, people cannot make decisions and condemn
others on the basis of NO EVIDENCE can they FM, its ok to admit it.

Are you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE that it happened?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is a hypothetical.

Your moral stance on this issue is unable to withstand a hypothetical question?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE that it happened?

All things are possible FMF, even pestering people to condemn others on the basis of having little or NO evidence, I am sure it happens in places where corruption is rife every day.

Originally posted by FMF
Your moral stance on this issue is unable to withstand a hypothetical question?

I am a practical chess player rather than a theoretician.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
All things are possible FMF, even pestering people to condemn others on the basis of having little or NO evidence, I am sure it happens in places where corruption is rife every day.

No, you misunderstand. I am asking you about cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE ~ not "NO evidence" ~ that the violence happened? Does your moral compass allow you to condemn it?