and ive yaken classes in logic happy.
there are computer programs that exist that can tell you if a conclusion is logical.
it's a math course.

While that doesn't exempt me from the possibility of making illogical statements, do understand that I am capable of identifying illogic when it is pointed out. If you are seeing illogic in a post of mine, feel free to point it out and I will look over it.

However, if you disagree with me, understand that there is perhaps something you are misunderstanding, rather than assume that i am wrong.

For instance, we can both be right about a certain topic, so long as we have different understandings of the framework. However there is only one correct framework here. Logically, I would conclude that your understanding is wrong, and therefore why you are insistent that you are correct in your accusation of me using fallacy incorrectly.

I am not discussing the logical validity of the claim, I'm criticising the use of the rules "Appeal to authority". You are once again using special pleading.

Appeal to authority:

"Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument."

This has nothing to do with:

"if god wants us to procreate, why would he make gays."

I'm beginning to believe special pleading is something you are very good at.

Yes, you're talking about the likes of Isabelle, I've used it.

You are very sloppy at logic I have observed. I'm stricking this out because I'm not exactly sure how I feel about you.

I can respect everything in here, but if you are completely honest, you will notice, imho, that you misused the rules in that specific post. I appreciate your humility, and I want to continue to take the time to show you where the misstep was.

My wish is that it will increase my confidence in you.

Gnac

I'm very sloppy at logic, as proven by your accusation of misusing fallacies, which has now diminished to misuning fallacy (singular), which i will prove you invorrect once again simply by saying that the statement relies upon god to make the argument.

Remember your own quote "in place of actual evidence". The scientists use actual evidence, therefore using a scientific understanding ia akin to using said evidence. Appeal to authority fallacy would be to say "because rol said it, it must be true".

No, in this contect it does not imply that God is a source of what is right. It wasn't part of the original statement.

The original statement: "if god wants us to procreate, why would he make gays."

What it does imply though, is that God is a designer (from "he make gays"), and the question was asking why would a designer who intends procreation allow for relations that don't procreate.

It's not the same as "I'm right because the bible says so".

imho

I have ignored the others because I am exhausted of arguing them, I will focus on one and prove you wrong, and then move on to the others if needed.

No, it is completely based off of an uncertified and undescribed premise, which is that all species are alike.

It is 100% not complete logic.

This is strawman. He said all animals (except) humans display homosexuality. Not, "All species are alike". Astonishing that in a thread about fallacies is one found.