Bednar claims the church is growing and vibrant

[Marcus]

The point ihq and I have been making all along.

Misrepresenting someone’s argument doesn’t make any kind of point other than something about reading comprehension. Neither of you even tried to engage the argument. You simply asserted that Bednar said the opposite of what he said. Both of you were so fixated on what you claimed was an obvious gotcha that you never got around to addressing what was actually wrong with his actual argument.

In your line of work, is a proof valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion?

Lol. Nothing of what you said is an accurate representation of the arguments put forward.

[Res Ipsa]

Misrepresenting someone’s argument doesn’t make any kind of point other than something about reading comprehension. Neither of you even tried to engage the argument. You simply asserted that Bednar said the opposite of what he said. Both of you were so fixated on what you claimed was an obvious gotcha that you never got around to addressing what was actually wrong with his actual argument.

In your line of work, is a proof valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion?

Lol. Nothing of what you said is an accurate representation of the arguments put forward.

I’ll take that as a no — a proof is not valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion.

What arguments do you think you put forward?

[Marcus]

Lol. Nothing of what you said is an accurate representation of the arguments put forward.

I’ll take that as a no — a proof is not valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion.

What arguments do you think you put forward?

What arguments did you miss?

[Res Ipsa]

I’ll take that as a no — a proof is not valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion.

What arguments do you think you put forward?

What arguments did you miss?

https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik?si=iQMzmbIn13XJ9Guo

[I Have Questions]

No, you haven’t. You’ve simply repeated Bednar’s words back to me, when the question on the table is what the words mean. My question is, what do you think Bednar sees as a commonality between SAS and “physical limitation” Repeating Bednar’s words over and over is not an answer. It’s avoidance.

Here’s what’s Bednar said…

Some people have physical limitations: They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.

I think the meaning of that isn’t complicated. He’s clearly saying that being attracted to the same sex is akin to having a body that is not fully functional. It’s right there. It could not be any clearer.

The irony of the whole issue is that you are missing the camel.

Was there a need for this?

[Res Ipsa]

No, you haven’t. You’ve simply repeated Bednar’s words back to me, when the question on the table is what the words mean. My question is, what do you think Bednar sees as a commonality between SAS and “physical limitation” Repeating Bednar’s words over and over is not an answer. It’s avoidance.

Here’s what’s Bednar said…

Some people have physical limitations: They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.

I think the meaning of that isn’t complicated. He’s clearly saying that being attracted to the same sex is akin to having a body that is not fully functional. It’s right there. It could not be any clearer.

The irony of the whole issue is that you are missing the camel.

Was there a need for this?

https://youtu.be/G1juPBoxBdc?si=mRkkl4_N_ej566s9

[I Have Questions]

https://youtu.be/G1juPBoxBdc?si=mRkkl4_N_ej566s9

Awww bless.

Some people have physical limitations: They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.

I think the meaning of that isn’t complicated. He’s clearly saying that being attracted to the same sex is akin to having a body that is not fully functional. It’s right there. It could not be any clearer.

Can you give me a reasonable alternative way of interpreting what Bednar said in what I’ve quoted?

[Res Ipsa]

https://youtu.be/G1juPBoxBdc?si=mRkkl4_N_ej566s9

Awww bless.

Some people have physical limitations: They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.

I think the meaning of that isn’t complicated. He’s clearly saying that being attracted to the same sex is akin to having a body that is not fully functional. It’s right there. It could not be any clearer.

Can you give me a reasonable alternative way of interpreting what Bednar said in what I’ve quoted?

I have. Repeatedly. But I’ve considered all of what he said to avoid taking them out of context.

But just take your own description of “akin to.” If by “akin to” you mean shares some characteristic that Bednar finds meaningful, I’d agree. But that still leaves us worth the question “what was the shared characteristic that Bednar was referring to?” At a minimum, whatever you claim it is, you should be able to show how it fits into his entire answer in a consistent way. Based on the totality of his answer, I think what he sees as the “akin” features is that they both fit in his broad category as “challenges.” Likewise, so does his example of physical attractiveness. They are all asking to one another because they are examples of challenges that are part and parcel of being mortal humans.

The practical problem with the interpretation you are arguing for is that it makes no sense in the context of Bednar’s entire answer. If Bednar argued that people who have physical limitations of any kind were sinners, or were less human, or deserved lesser treatment, then I think your interpretation would for just fine in his argument. Physicals limitations are sin, SSA is a physical limitation, therefore SSA is sin.

But Bednar’s argument doesn’t disparate people with physical limitations in any way. How does view them? Challenges. Just like physical attractiveness. So even if we use your interpretation, you simply can’t get to anything like gay people are bad or sinners or less than human using Bednar’s argument.

The principle of generous interpretation has nothing to do with being nice or rewarding someone we think of as good. It’s a tool to help us avoid confirmation bias when we interpret someone else’s word. It’s the best tool I know of to avoid the strawman fallacy, which if nothing else prevents me from looking like a disingenuous moron.

The other, which I can’t use here, would be to take the summary of his argument that I wrote upthread and ask him if my summary was fair and accurate. Unless I can understand his argument well enough to state it in a way he agrees is reasonable, the odds are very good that when I launch a counter argument I’ll trip over my own feet and look like an idiot. More importantly, I’ll have blown the chance to persuade anybody.

So that’s my interpretation. Physical attractiveness is akin to physical limitations is akin to SSA because they are examples of challenges that we are all faced with in life. Being faced with a challenge is not sin.

That’s it.

I hope you enjoyed the clip. I thought the line “It’s hard to change people’s minds” summing up all the frenetic chaos that preceded it was a good fit with the thread.

[Marcus]

What arguments did you miss?

https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik?si=iQMzmbIn13XJ9Guo

You missed policemen's balls? But your comment to ihq was priceless.
"I have. Repeatedly."
Yes.

[Res Ipsa]

https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik?si=iQMzmbIn13XJ9Guo

You missed policemen's balls? But your comment to ihq was priceless.
"I have. Repeatedly."
Yes.

What IHQ asked RI:

Can you give me a reasonable alternative way of interpreting what Bednar said in what I’ve quoted?

What Marcus quoted from RI’s answer:

I have. Repeatedly.

What Marcus failed to quote from RI’s answer:

So that’s my interpretation. Physical attractiveness is akin to physical limitations is akin to SSA because they are examples of challenges that we are all faced with in life. Being faced with a challenge is not sin.

Selective quotation that gives the opposite impression of what was actually said. Hmm. It must be opposite weekend.