• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

So instead of Boy Scouts "marching" and singing boy scout songs will they be "skipping" and singing show tunes?:lol:

Do you realize just how stupid this stuff sounds when you post it? I hear no one wanting to change any of the structure or procedures of the Boy Scouts.
 
Please, make the laughing stop! You can't have ever spent any time around kids if you think that.

Actually, he's right. My job requires me to spend a lot of time around kids. They are far more accepting of homosexuals than adults, especially older adults. Further, surveys consistently show that the younger one is the more likely one is accepting of homosexuality.
 
I'm well aware of what the common definition of such a fallacy is, which doesn't impress me since most people, especially on the internet, don't have a clue what formal logic is.

Then you agree that you used the definition incorrectly, correct?

You're still begging the question, which you can not avoid. You can not determine the truth of a proposition from it's consequences, since false premises sometimes yield true consequences. You would have to know all of the consequences, throughout all time, to make such a determination. There simply doesn't exist a method to determine what is true. We can only ever know what isn't true through contradiction, which, as an aside, is why all scientific theories are tentative.

I'm not begging the question at all. The issue is not whatever claim I am making. That is for you to dispute. However, you cannot refute it by tossing out the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, claiming that the position violates it. It doesn't based on the definition of the fallacy. Find another way to refute the position.
 
I know gays and they all are effeminate. There is a gay guy in my Mt bike group and he's a good rider but so are many of the women, they are still feminine though.

maybe all the gays YOU know but is factually not the case.

of the many i know, you cant even tell unless they want you to or you simply see them with their boyfriends.
 
but not prolife!
I'm in favor of abortion, but it should be retroactive one generation. :)
Care to speculaste how many expectant mothers would abort themselves? :)
They can't take care of themselves or be responsible for their actions right? just a drag on the society and taxes. Abort them with their unborn infant.
They can have an interesting discussion together past the veil.
 
If you really think that all gays are super effeminate, odds are those who are not aren't going to tell or even bother with you, because you come across as a huge homophobe. Based on the comments here, that's the theory I'm going with.
 
The issue is not whatever claim I am making.


It is if the claim is that such an authoritative agency, by citing it, infers truth. That is what I am disputing and for reasons which I've already made clear. An appeal to authority, without exception, begs the question. If you feel comfortable with the definition you posted, and you find it useful in debates, then fine, but with regards to truth, such an appeal has no reasonable foundation with which to speak of.
 
It is if the claim is that such an authoritative agency, by citing it, infers truth. That is what I am disputing and for reasons which I've already made clear. An appeal to authority, without exception, begs the question. If you feel comfortable with the definition you posted, and you find it useful in debates, then fine, but with regards to truth, such an appeal has no reasonable foundation with which to speak of.

No, an appeal to authority does not beg the question if the authority IS the/an authority on the issue. If one wants to use Einstein when discussing Physics or Mathematics, an opponent claiming an appeal to authority has no basis with which to make that claim. If they are using Shakespeare when discussing Physics or Mathematics, then the appeal to authority logical fallacy is an appropriate confrontation, attacking the logic of the claim. Einstein may or may not be right on an issue of Physics or Mathematics, but one cannot dismiss him solely on his position. One CAN dismiss Shakespeare.
 
The ban on openly gay adult leaders is still disgusting though.

However, it's their right to do so, just like it's their right to allow gay members.

Ain't it great when Americans make free choices on their own vice the government forcing them to make those decisions? I'm all for that kind of freedom. What about you?
 
Depends on what you are saying. If you are saying that an individual person can choose who they want to associate aka "mix" with, you are correct. However, that does not apply to businesses or associations whether public or private.

It all depends on the business, or association.
 
Well if you want to denigrate gays by calling them homos, feel free.

Stating that it is not over is just a reality.

Didn't say anything about the BSA being oppressed. People should be free to associate with whomever they want to associate as long as it isn't state sponsored. I guess some people feel more entitled than others. Personally, if I were gay, I wouldn't want to be a part of an organization that did not want me. I don't try to force my way into the Scientology Center or Nation of Islam meetings. In reality, the scouts are largely a bunch of geeks so I never had a real desire to participate. I am sure they did great things at one time, but I just don't see it today. Big Brothers is a more relevant organization to at-risk boys than the scouts.

My son went all the way through the Cub Scout program through Webelos (speaking of gay), and I was there most of the time and it was great. He started in Scouts and it was just ponderously boring with most kids just their because their parents wanted them to have Eagle Scout on their résumé. It seems to have lost the actual point of Scouting in favor of the evidence someone did it, not unlike how education is less about actually learning today than it is about showing weakly linked evidence of learning (standardized testing).
 
Nope. You are absolutely wrong. Sorry.
You can pretend it does...but it does not.

I have explained many times just how it does. If you would like to prove me wrong, do so.
 
So instead of Boy Scouts "marching" and singing boy scout songs will they be "skipping" and singing show tunes?:lol:

Yeah! And when they let black people in, they started listenin to that hip hop and wearing saggy pants and gold chains right?

No seriously this is exactly what you're doing.
 
I have explained many times just how it does. If you would like to prove me wrong, do so.

You haven't prove one time how it does. Prove you wrong? Look at the Constitution. If you run a business you are not free to refuse business to someone because they are female or black or have green eyes.
 
You haven't prove one time how it does. Prove you wrong? Look at the Constitution. If you run a business you are not free to refuse business to someone because they are female or black or have green eyes.

Do you know what I should be looking for? How does the right to association not apply to business? How does the thirteenth amendment not apply to business? How is it possible that the fourteenth amendment applies to business when it makes it very clear it only applies to states? How does the fourteenth amendment void the first and thirteenth amendment? Any answers?

Lets see if you are willing to think about this, or not.
 
You haven't prove one time how it does. Prove you wrong? Look at the Constitution. If you run a business you are not free to refuse business to someone because they are female or black or have green eyes.

A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Read the sign.
 
You'll hear about it. This is nothing but a break in the storm. Next will be the "Why can't gays be scout Masters. It isn't like all gays are pedophiles."

Your argument is pretty weak. Most girls who are abused are victims of their male father figures or close male relative. So then what? We ban male straights for adopting female children?
 
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Read the sign.

No, they do not. Read the law. Putting up a sign doesn't make it any more legal.
 
Two things I don't particularly understand about this decision.

1. Are there a lot of children who are self-identifying as gay and at what age do they start to do so?

2. If you are going to encourage young gay people to "out" themselves in an organization like the boy scouts, wouldn't it be wise to have scout leaders and other adults around who are also gay and "out" who can be role models for these young boys/men? If there aren't any, won't that just make the young gay people feel more isolated?
 
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Read the sign.

Really? So a business can refuse to service a black person?
 
Really? So a business can refuse to service a black person?

Damn sure can. Just like they can refuse service to a white, yellow, brown, or red person. Read the sign.
 
Back
Top Bottom