[iranger]

Sorry site...there is no logical flow here. I honestly can't discern much deductive argument out of your posts. Sheer accumulation of words and random ideas do not an argument make. My apologies if this sounds harsh as I'm pressed for time but I really don't think you've done anything other than try to support a bad analogy. I willingfully will back away from mine as I agree its full of holes but the bulimia thing is equally full of holes. Cheers!

[sitetest]

Dear iranger,

Well, what can I tell ya?

Analogies don't make for precise logical arguments. As I've said multiple times to you, that isn't their purpose.

Read what I actually wrote, and perhaps you may understand what I actually wrote:

Kerretarded asked:

"If the purpose of sexual relations within marriage is to be both unitive and procreative, how is it intrinsically moral to purposely and knowingly avoid a time when the act could bear fruit?"

I replied, in part:

"That's a great question!

"As a Catholic, it's a question with which I struggled for years and years. Frankly, I've never found an intellectual argument that is wholly satisfying."[emphasis added]

I then continued:

"However, a former poster here at Free Republic, Brian Kopp, introduced me to an analogy that made the connection for me."

After presenting the analogy, I concluded:

"There are others who can present excellent intellectual arguments. Perhaps they might assist. However, for me, Brian's little analogy was persuasive to me in a way that the intellectual arguments were not."[emphasis added]

That you conclude that an analogy is not a rigorous intellectual argument is true... and irrelevant, as I explicitly offered it IN LIEU of a rigorous intellectual argument.

As an analogy, the analogy offered works splendidly. It illustrates and illuminates, rather than argues, the difference between means and ends.


sitetest