Page 109 of 120 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #1081
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    From what I see, things tend to take quite some time. Let's look at this issue, for example. Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the APA in 1973. Only NOW, 40 years later are folks starting to support SSM in majorities. That's pretty long for societal values to change enough for laws to be placed in effect.



    Not sure I agree, but I tend to see the Constitution as being a fairly flexible document.
    Fair enough
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #1082
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, since it doesn't exist, that's why it doesn't apply.


    So...37 American states are irrelevant…aye aye cap’n, or one might even be tempted to say comrade if in a different part of the world with that elitist styled position—that centrally- planned view…so, we no longer take into consideration what the super-majority of our fellow Americans say, eh? That is just not relevant, huh?

    The BS detector is ringing loud here...



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, what it states is that your appeal to emotion and your "feelings" really don't matter if we are discussing facts and information.
    You no more get to determine how people make their decisions individually and come together as a whole any more than I do… so, your appeal to the minority's emotions even hold less sway…glad to say.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What was it 10 years ago? I consider that differentiation relevant.
    Oh, so now it’s back to being relevant…I see, if it works for you then it’s to be considered relevant…I get it…heads you win tails I lose…nice position, no matter how absurd it looks to the rest of us out here. You do know you have to win the debate not only just in your own mind, but…



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is you not understanding that morality is relative and your morality only applies to you. It's about what society determines as moral and what society determines as normal and acceptable. And, since society is slowly changing towards an acceptance of SSM (51% now support it), your offense at this is irrelevant.
    Yes, morality is relative alright, its related closer to my position than yours. And no, there is a common morality that applies more than just to me. Your side has attempted to pull that morality down to the lower rungs on the civilizational ladder…it is way easier to go down that ladder than it is to go back up again. And sure, maybe you will pull more and more of us down into that sticky mess with you, misery loves company. Many of us, however, will take to the higher rungs on that ladder and try to pull people further up.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No straw man. A response to you saying that "the rest of us are not fine with it". You being "fine" or "not fine" with it is irrelevant. You have no right to not be offended.
    37 states, again, not fine with it is pretty relevant. And we are going to squash you folks going around the people using the courts to get your way…that is getting rather tiresome and it is a weakness in the system that needed tending to anyhow. Plus we need to compartmentalize / neutralize faux institutions, such as the APA, whose bias is showing and that have become really nothing more than change agents for this rag tag band of societal wrecking balls.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.

    And those of you who try to bring a moral equivalence of the disgusting to the good, well, that is a disgusting position and we will fight you every step of the way. Tolerance towards those who would impose by force will be opposed by greater force.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    It is far beyond just the statistical standpoint. This is far from normal, it is far from desired, it is far from beneficial.
    Thank you for finally admitting that homosexuality is all the above…finally you have come to your senses.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And we note that when you cannot refute an argument... the fact that you either do not understand the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, or the fact that you DO know the difference but discussing that difference would sink your argument further into oblivion, you tend to sink into appeals to emotion. As soon as you use the word "should" you lose, since should is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion. Further, you sink into MORE inaccuracy when you use the term "abnormal" since this term is a value judgment. Finally, your final statement is incorrect, as we already know that SSM produces favorable outcomes.
    What the hell are you even talking about? None of that even makes a difference in the first place, not with regards to marriage and what marriage actually needs to be.
    As you would say, not relevant.

    And your whole “should” position is beyond doubt another load of meringue with nothing under all the empty fluff…your usual, served up as a desert with no substance. You “should” not murder others, you “should” not steal, you “should” not commit treason, those are all backed up with laws that "should" be, in the opinion of the majority, and are to be instituted... so you know where you should stick such utter hogwash…you see, those are far beyond just opinions my good captain…I would hope you are one of the few aboard that ship that is sailing in the wrong direction.

    No, as already established, the norm is what is usually done, certainly not the abnormal, not the deviancy that you and your side promotes. It’s really rather sickening actually, and that, thank god, is not the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    In other words, your comments above are nothing but value judgments, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated opinions, and inaccuracies. Quite a feat for one paragraph.
    Mine are the opinions of the majority rules opinions and those derived from the wisdom of the ages, the religions and most of the solid institutions that support a great nation. This being a fight against your disgusting experiment with trying to equate the lower rungs of the ladder with the higher…something that is anti-civilizational. One that promotes the maxim that when one stands for everything, one stands for nothing. And he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    See, you try to be condescending, but the problem is you have no substance to back you; which is why it comes across as being laughable. Just as I did in this post, each and every argument you make, I easily show to be silly, false, or demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge on the issue. Now, you can feel free to keep trying, but I suspect these kinds of defeats will keep happening to you.
    Look in the mirror on lack of substance cap’n. You do all this in your mind, a figment, that if it were a pigment, would be completely transparent… as in not existent. But you can keep making those proclamations, its what you are truly good at, excel at, tho it looks rather sad.
    This fantasy of substance you promote of yourself, the lack of it is why there is no point in further discussion… you do not see your own ideology but instead misplace your ideology for substance.
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 09-18-13 at 09:09 PM.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #1083
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I don't promote Same Sex Marriage... I promote Equal Rights and the enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Laws.





    Nope... not at all... you beliefs are bigoted. Pretty simple actually.
    We currently have exactly equal laws... at least in the states where SSM is prohibited. I have the exact same rights as every other man, women have the exact same rights as all other women. And to blur those lines will open the door to all sorts of unintended, mostly not good, consequences.

    I would say your beliefs about his beliefs are bigoted. Just as simple.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #1084
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Blah, blah, blah - says you. You accuse me of lacking "information," employing logical fallacies, being inaccurate and other asinine blather yet are yourself incapable of providing a single shred of the same in support of your ill-informed... opinion.
    Of course you lack information, employ logical fallacies and are inaccurate. You don't understand basic concepts. You constantly confuse orientation for behavior, and don't know simple definitions. I would say this defines lacking information.

    Moreover, you can't even provide the simplest - the SIMPLEST of explanations in support of your opinion - to explain how homosexual behavior is "normal." Be it the sex itself, the romantic kissing, or the romantic holding of hands - you can't show how that's normal. In fact, you won't even try. You just dodged the issue - dodged it because we both know your only "proof" is nothing more than having accepted what homosexuals say about themselves and their behavior.
    It wasn't dodged at all. Every example you posted was a logical fallacy. It's not my fault if you can't debate without using fallacies.

    Be honest - that's YOUR only source of "proof" isn't it? What they say about themselves and their behavior - and you unflinchingly accept it. Why?
    What's my only source of proof for WHAT? Please be clear with your questions. I understand that it must be tough not really understanding the issue, but give it a try.

    You chide me for not knowing the difference between orientation and behavior, multiple times. And that after I was very clear that I don't believe in the homosexual's rationalization of their behavior.
    Your belief is irrelevant. Orientation is not defined by behavior. OK, so it's worse than I thought. Seems to me that your lack of understanding of the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation is that you don't understand exactly what sexual orientation IS.

    I don't believe in "orientation" - it's an excuse to justify their behavior. Yet when I try to explain that, you come back with the repetitious snide quip that I don't know the difference. I'll say it yet again, if that'll help - I DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIENTATION EXCUSE.
    Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. Orientation exists. Let's see if I'm right. Define sexual orientation.

    And do you want to know something - not even the researchers in this field are capable of defining it, let alone applying it consistently - whether it's attraction, behavior, or "identity." And do you want to know why? Because those their data, data gathered from interviews, they acknowledge is consistently inconsistent. So not even the respondents themselves know.

    ...but of course, you do.
    Sexual orientation has a fairly well defined definition. But here's a question that I'd like to see you answer. Define the heterosexual sexual orientation.

    You chide me for my beliefs being just that - beliefs, that I am in your words "uneducated" and my opinions are "unfounded" - moreover, you give yourself an allowance for dismissing them all going forward were I to post further on the topic. What if they are beliefs? So what? Are you suggesting your "knowledge" of the issue isn't? Where in all the opining of your own is a shred of something one might consider as other than your own beliefs. What makes your belief right and mine wrong? What homosexuals say?
    Beliefs are secondary to facts. Thus far, your posts are devoid of facts. Now, what facts do you need? That homosexuality is normal? I've already done that. That there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior? You don't know the difference and seem unable to present the difference, so what would my presenting the difference do for someone who denies reality? Proving that homosexuality is neither deviant nor perverse? Well, if we are not discussing statistics, I've proven you wrong on both counts. See? Facts overrule your beliefs. That's why your beliefs are irrelevant.

    Hope that helps.

    ...and all this without a shred of "proof," without an attempt to explain, without even the slightest attempt on your own to provide what you accuse me of not providing. The ONLY "proof" you've provided thus far is to point to your opinion of my opinions and say it's "nonsense and shows that I'm correct."

    In other words - your only argument is your own appeal to my comments as proof that yours are correct. That's nifty.
    I've proven you wrong on the basics. Definitions. See, that's the thing about debate. If someone doesn't understand definitions, or uses them incorrectly... as you have done. proving them wrong is really easy. My suggestion would be that you examine the definition of some of the terms that you have gotten wrong and then get back to me.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #1085
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post


    So...37 American states are irrelevant…aye aye cap’n, or one might even be tempted to say comrade if in a different part of the world with that elitist styled position—that centrally- planned view…so, we no longer take into consideration what the super-majority of our fellow Americans say, eh? That is just not relevant, huh?

    The BS detector is ringing loud here...
    You know, repeating arguments that I've already destroyed really doesn't help you.

    You no more get to determine how people make their decisions individually and come together as a whole any more than I do… so, your appeal to the minority's emotions even hold less sway…glad to say.
    People can make their decisions anyway they like. However, if they make them based on emotion and not facts, then I'll point it out. That's what you did.

    Oh, so now it’s back to being relevant…I see, if it works for you then it’s to be considered relevant…I get it…heads you win tails I lose…nice position, no matter how absurd it looks to the rest of us out here. You do know you have to win the debate not only just in your own mind, but…
    Different argument. You seem to claim that 37 states being against SSM means something that makes your position, stronger. Of course, you lack context in your argument, so I added the context and showed how your presentation makes my position stronger. This is known as self-pwnage. You seem good at that.



    Yes, morality is relative alright, its related closer to my position than yours.
    This is a contradiction. Morality is relative. As soon as you claim it's related to someone more closely, it ceases being relative. I'd say this is self-pwnage too, but that would be too kind.

    And no, there is a common morality that applies more than just to me.
    No there isn't. There are people who have similar morality.

    Your side has attempted to pull that morality down to the lower rungs on the civilizational ladder…it is way easier to go down that ladder than it is to go back up again.
    Since morality is relative, this is nothing but opinion and is therefore irrelevant.

    And sure, maybe you will pull more and more of us down into that sticky mess with you, misery loves company. Many of us, however, will take to the higher rungs on that ladder and try to pull people further up.
    Since morality is relevant, this is nothing but your opinion and therefore irrelevant.

    You are making this too easy.

    37 states, again, not fine with it is pretty relevant.
    Still going with the failed argument, eh? How many states were not fine with it 10 years ago? I noticed that you didn't answer that question. I wonder why?

    And we are going to squash you folks going around the people using the courts to get your way…that is getting rather tiresome and it is a weakness in the system that needed tending to anyhow.
    You mean like DOMA? You just keep self-pwning. Are you trying to make yourself look bad?

    Plus we need to compartmentalize / neutralize faux institutions, such as the APA, whose bias is showing and that have become really nothing more than change agents for this rag tag band of societal wrecking balls.
    Awww... what's the matter? You want to neutralize any group that presents information that proves you wrong? Good to know that you believe in censorship.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.
    And I guess I will just have to keep proving you wrong with facts, while watching you complain and sulk with nothing but emotion. That's OK. It's amusing to watch.

    And those of you who try to bring a moral equivalence of the disgusting to the good, well, that is a disgusting position and we will fight you every step of the way. Tolerance towards those who would impose by force will be opposed by greater force.
    Feel free to have your opinions. I like uninformed opinions like yours. They make my responses far easier to compose.

    Thank you for finally admitting that homosexuality is all the above…finally you have come to your senses.
    I didn't. It was YOUR comment that I forgot to place in quotes so it would be assigned to you. Breaking up your quotes so I can address each point of inaccuracy that you make is quite tedious. I missed one.

    What the hell are you even talking about? None of that even makes a difference in the first place, not with regards to marriage and what marriage actually needs to be.
    As you would say, not relevant.
    As soon as you use the phrase "needs to be" your position is a fantasy, not based in fact, and irrelevant. You keep making the same errors, even though I have been correcting you as we go along.

    And your whole “should” position is beyond doubt another load of meringue with nothing under all the empty fluff…your usual, served up as a desert with no substance. You “should” not murder others, you “should” not steal, you “should” not commit treason, those are all backed up with laws that "should" be, in the opinion of the majority, and are to be instituted... so you know where you should stick such utter hogwash…you see, those are far beyond just opinions my good captain…I would hope you are one of the few aboard that ship that is sailing in the wrong direction.
    "Should" is irrelevant to reality. The laws are relevant. Just because you believe something "should" be, doesn't make it fact. If it is law, it is fact. Currently, in 13 states, SSM is legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. Currently in 37 states, SSM is not legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. LAWS and facts are relevant.

    Now I've explained this three times. Lets see if you finally get it.

    No, as already established, the norm is what is usually done, certainly not the abnormal, not the deviancy that you and your side promotes. It’s really rather sickening actually, and that, thank god, is not the norm.
    Norm is what society says is the norm and what is accepted. We know that 51% of the population accepts SSM. Therefore, it is the norm. We know that homosexuality is accepted as a different variant of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is normal. Thank you for, once again, helping my argument. Perhaps I should just let you make it for me, since you are doing such a good job.

    Mine are the opinions of the majority rules opinions and those derived from the wisdom of the ages, the religions and most of the solid institutions that support a great nation.
    Wow. An appeal to popularity, the numbers, and tradition logical fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence. Three in one. You've outdone yourself this time.

    This being a fight against your disgusting experiment with trying to equate the lower rungs of the ladder with the higher…something that is anti-civilizational. One that promotes the maxim that when one stands for everything, one stands for nothing. And he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
    And here we go back to not understanding the position of relative morality. I guess if you are used to something, even if it doesn't work, you'll stick to it.

    Look in the mirror on lack of substance cap’n. You do all this in your mind, a figment, that if it were a pigment, would be completely transparent… as in not existent. But you can keep making those proclamations, its what you are truly good at, excel at, tho it looks rather sad.
    This fantasy of substance you promote of yourself, the lack of it is why there is no point in further discussion… you do not see your own ideology but instead misplace your ideology for substance.
    And as usual, all I need to do is take apart your own failed argument. Mostly, when you debate me, you help me prove you wrong. You might actually be decent if you didn't use emotion and personal morality in all of your arguments... but since it also seems that you don't have a good grasp of the topic, I would imagine you must use emotion in order to stay in the debate. But do let me know if you do have any substance to present. I'll be happy to examine it.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #1086
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,714

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.
    Path to chaos. I love it. And they call me an "alarmist" for thinking we should do something about our use of fossil fuels. You're telling me a Gaypocalypse is coming.

    But at least you're finally admitting what the real issue is. You think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not about some morals of society, some appeal to the authority of your God. You think it's disgusting, so you want the law to reflect that.

    This is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on your personal disapproval of something. The government of the United States can't make gender-based classifications like this unless they show an important state interest in doing so. Tell me what that interest is. State interest. Not yours.

    But you still think it's all about you, I guess.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #1087
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Path to chaos. I love it. And they call me an "alarmist" for thinking we should do something about our use of fossil fuels. You're telling me a Gaypocalypse is coming.

    But at least you're finally admitting what the real issue is. You think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not about some morals of society, some appeal to the authority of your God. You think it's disgusting, so you want the law to reflect that.

    This is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on your personal disapproval of something. The government of the United States can't make gender-based classifications like this unless they show an important state interest in doing so. Tell me what that interest is. State interest. Not yours.

    But you still think it's all about you, I guess.
    Oh buddy, don't know if you have read much of the thread, and in particular my posts, but its all that...its depraved and ghastly, it goes against good morals, goes against religion, against strong institutions, weakens the family especially with this absurd push for legitimacy and equality ...but for sure, I personally think its nauseatingly disgusting, absolutely. Do not even like to think about the logistics of this practice at all if I can avoid it.

    Nor do we make law based on your personal baseless support for a deviant practice. Oh, and we the government can do as we please, government is the servant, we, the people, are the master. So if we so decide, so it shall be done. We have no obligation to follow through with societal suicide, we have a duty to future generations of Americans more than we do to 2-5% of our current population that happens to be of a group having deviant sexual desires and aspirations to have that deviance looked upon as normal.

    Its all about me and the majority of normal folks, not about you and your minority of deviant folk. So, yeah, I guess you are at least partially correct.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #1088
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Of course you lack information, employ logical fallacies and are inaccurate. You don't understand basic concepts. You constantly confuse orientation for behavior, and don't know simple definitions. I would say this defines lacking information.
    And yet, you can't refute a single thing I’ve said.

    I’m seeing baseless assertions may be a critical part of your debate style. W/r to the basics though, I don't see it as my responsibility to explain them to you. If you don't (or won't) take responsibility for the confusion they apparently are causing you, that would be your problem, not mine. W/r to definitions – I suggest Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary as it’s quite user-friendly.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    It wasn't dodged at all. Every example you posted was a logical fallacy. It's not my fault if you can't debate without using fallacies.
    Well I fail to see how it's my responsibility to educate you on the difference between answering a simple question and [supposed] logical fallacies, let alone how to conduct a civil conversation without repeatedly dodging honest, straightforward questions. Now if what is/isn't a logical fallacy is what's confusing you - there are numerous sites on the web where you can get a wealth of clarification. I don't think it necessary I google them for you – I trust you can manage the few seconds to get access to all the help you need.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What's my only source of proof for WHAT? Please be clear with your questions. I understand that it must be tough not really understanding the issue, but give it a try.
    I’m not sure what you mean by, "WHAT?" It could not have been any clearer. I sense projection may be a critical part of your debate style too.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Your belief is irrelevant. Orientation is not defined by behavior. OK, so it's worse than I thought. Seems to me that your lack of understanding of the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation is that you don't understand exactly what sexual orientation IS.
    No – it’s definitely quite clear. I’m not sure why you’re struggling so with the concepts - and for whatever reason, attempting to blame me for your struggles in the process. Tsk. Tsk. I see deflection may be a critical part of your debate style.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. Orientation exists. Let's see if I'm right. Define sexual orientation.
    Now I see pointless repetition may be a critical part of your debate style too. You might want to review one of your new-found sources on logical fallacies for that one. Hint: think, “nausea.”

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Sexual orientation has a fairly well defined definition. But here's a question that I'd like to see you answer. Define the heterosexual sexual orientation.
    I'm sensing some possible issues with basic reading comprehension here as well - given my post couldn’t have been clearer as to its intent and content; but then that seems to be a common thread. Suppose however we try and get organized and you take a stab at answering my questions first, ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Beliefs are secondary to facts. Thus far, your posts are devoid of facts. Now, what facts do you need? That homosexuality is normal? I've already done that. That there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior? You don't know the difference and seem unable to present the difference, so what would my presenting the difference do for someone who denies reality? Proving that homosexuality is neither deviant nor perverse? Well, if we are not discussing statistics, I've proven you wrong on both counts. See? Facts overrule your beliefs. That's why your beliefs are irrelevant.
    The mystery is unraveling. Abrogating responsibility for the basics, confused definitions, dodging questions, ignoring answers, struggles with concepts, grammar, reading comprehension… a definite pattern is indeed emerging.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Hope that helps.
    Actually, couple all the above with a debate style that is critically dependent on baseless assertions, deflection, projection, pointless repetition, and selective forgetfulness and it seems painfully clear that I’m not the one needing help here

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I've proven you wrong on the basics. Definitions. See, that's the thing about debate. If someone doesn't understand definitions, or uses them incorrectly... as you have done. proving them wrong is really easy. My suggestion would be that you examine the definition of some of the terms that you have gotten wrong and then get back to me.
    Boy, it is tempting… but I’ll refrain because I know that’s what the strategy is. I do appreciate your attempts to “help” but my recommendation has always been that the offerer first get help themselves before they presume to set out to help others; which advice has always been good to avoid the obvious references to planks, logs, and long, red and white canes.

    Sidebar:
    Unfortunately, one sees on every forum / board like this a peculiarly annoying "debate style" adopted by some for whatever reason – perhaps because it is so annoying – perhaps because it requires so little effort – -- or perhaps simply because it requires so little effort to be so annoying. I don’t know; I don’t much care. It gets adopted apparently as part of some cute, albeit puerile “winning strategy” which tactics are to annoy their opposition into silence which they characteristically then interpret as having “won.” Project, deflect, ignore, repeat, conveniently forget, and baselessly assert often enough and most reasonable people will quit wasting their time in favor of infinitely better uses of it, leaving the annoyer (pathetically) to their pointless “triumph.” Well good for them.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  9. #1089
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And yet you've offered no proof and have decided to use a red herring to hide the fact that you both can't follow the context of the discussion and have been shown to have failed with your position. It doesn't surprise me that you were so easy to dispatch. Your lack of integrity from the other thread was quite evident and you have showed it again, here. Good job.
    LOL. Mr. Irrelevant is back pretending that he didn't make anything up again. LOL. Good to see you back at it because had I not noticed your post I wouldn't be reminding everyone of the phony claim you made last week. Well here it is folks. He made up a phony claim about a 20 man condom study and used it as fact to try to make one of his silly points. Since then he has squirmed, twisted, weaseled, and anything and everything else in his failed attempt to change the subject, which is of course the bogus study he claimed existed. The "proof" is in his post last week. Since then he has sounded like Obama and his denial of his "red line". But that's what liberals do.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  10. #1090
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You know, repeating arguments that I've already destroyed really doesn't help you.



    People can make their decisions anyway they like. However, if they make them based on emotion and not facts, then I'll point it out. That's what you did.



    Different argument. You seem to claim that 37 states being against SSM means something that makes your position, stronger. Of course, you lack context in your argument, so I added the context and showed how your presentation makes my position stronger. This is known as self-pwnage. You seem good at that.





    This is a contradiction. Morality is relative. As soon as you claim it's related to someone more closely, it ceases being relative. I'd say this is self-pwnage too, but that would be too kind.



    No there isn't. There are people who have similar morality.



    Since morality is relative, this is nothing but opinion and is therefore irrelevant.



    Since morality is relevant, this is nothing but your opinion and therefore irrelevant.

    You are making this too easy.



    Still going with the failed argument, eh? How many states were not fine with it 10 years ago? I noticed that you didn't answer that question. I wonder why?



    You mean like DOMA? You just keep self-pwning. Are you trying to make yourself look bad?



    Awww... what's the matter? You want to neutralize any group that presents information that proves you wrong? Good to know that you believe in censorship.



    And I guess I will just have to keep proving you wrong with facts, while watching you complain and sulk with nothing but emotion. That's OK. It's amusing to watch.



    Feel free to have your opinions. I like uninformed opinions like yours. They make my responses far easier to compose.



    I didn't. It was YOUR comment that I forgot to place in quotes so it would be assigned to you. Breaking up your quotes so I can address each point of inaccuracy that you make is quite tedious. I missed one.



    As soon as you use the phrase "needs to be" your position is a fantasy, not based in fact, and irrelevant. You keep making the same errors, even though I have been correcting you as we go along.



    "Should" is irrelevant to reality. The laws are relevant. Just because you believe something "should" be, doesn't make it fact. If it is law, it is fact. Currently, in 13 states, SSM is legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. Currently in 37 states, SSM is not legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. LAWS and facts are relevant.

    Now I've explained this three times. Lets see if you finally get it.



    Norm is what society says is the norm and what is accepted. We know that 51% of the population accepts SSM. Therefore, it is the norm. We know that homosexuality is accepted as a different variant of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is normal. Thank you for, once again, helping my argument. Perhaps I should just let you make it for me, since you are doing such a good job.



    Wow. An appeal to popularity, the numbers, and tradition logical fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence. Three in one. You've outdone yourself this time.



    And here we go back to not understanding the position of relative morality. I guess if you are used to something, even if it doesn't work, you'll stick to it.



    And as usual, all I need to do is take apart your own failed argument. Mostly, when you debate me, you help me prove you wrong. You might actually be decent if you didn't use emotion and personal morality in all of your arguments... but since it also seems that you don't have a good grasp of the topic, I would imagine you must use emotion in order to stay in the debate. But do let me know if you do have any substance to present. I'll be happy to examine it.
    This is such a crock that I am certainly not going to take the time with you anymore, beyond this post, as it’s just not worthwhile. Your self-absorbed belief that these ‘ oops, forgot to flush’ opinions of yours don’t stink is hilarious…so thanks for that, but to expect anyone to spend time going all through this hot mess in the future?

    Nah.

    Let’s start with the ‘morality is relative’ statements…if that is so, then the topic of morality would totally be subject to emotion and opinion… and so to make the accusation that it is only I that is doing so when you, by your own parameters, would have to be doing the same thing is…what do you call it? Self-pwnage—self described? Si Señor . The fact that you got your butt owned on how homosexuality somehow became ‘normal’ is well known. So, you have what are supposed to be unbiased institutions shilling themselves because they are liberal [and probably many times even subject to the same deviance that they, if we believed them, want to try to force the rest of us to considered normal]…its laughable but hardly objective. Just following the liberal non-reproductive herd, unnurgh unnurrrgh…nice.

    Then the self denial of the fact that you cannot just do away with the fact that 37 states have either Constitutional bans on SSM or define marriage as to be only between one man and one woman…that it is irrelevant unless you are then taking into account that there has been minimal movement on the point over 10 years…then it suddenly becomes relevant...hmmmm, if it’s not relevant, then movement in the last ten years would also be irrelevant. Simple to anyone who knows how to reason, but to those whose positions are incessantly irrational, it makes perfect sense that it is irrelevant in the one but suddenly relevant in the other.
    Self pwnge again? Si Señor.

    But of course it is not irrelevant, because the American people have overwhelmingly through the institution and strenuous effort necessary to accomplish Constitutional amendments to ban this depraved desire thus prove that WE, the majority, REFUSE TO GO ALONG WITH A DEGENERATE MORALITY. One might spray a ton of perfume on dog dumplings…it’s still gonna be dog dumplings.

    As regards a common morality… you can look up common but seeing as you have no particular idea of what is normal and what is deviant you seem to have a morally relative dictionary and so definitions mean what you want them to mean, but common would be the most regularly occurring morality…which come from the major religious moralities in toto … argue it all you want but you non-religious or religious but actually nonbelieving folk are the minority. And we are going to keep it that way. The 51% is fictional and most people have been 'politically corrected' into going along with something they know deep down is sordid at best. We “normal folks” don’t even like to think of what …well…simply yuck….Sorry to have to break it to you.

    But the fact that you over and over and over again [ read above in at least four instances] call morality relative and therefore subject to emotion means your supposed statements of substance are only those of your opinion and so, based on your own logic, irrelevant [ self-pwnge again? Si Señor] …but this is where the 37 states come in [ yes, AGAIN, as it is relevant ] because even if you were right about opinion, this would be THE MAJORITY OPINION in a nation where the MAJORITY RULES. Got that relevant factoid, do you? The APA does not get to decide for us. That would be an appeal to authority [ which in any case would be erroneous as has previously been proven that they are not really a true authority but merely a biased interloper ]. ? Si Señor.

    ‘Should’ and ‘needs to be’ are banished eh? So is shame apparently, because any perverted thing you folks want to push on the rest of us and we are just supposed to lay down, or more apropos, bend over and let you drive right through huh? 'Should be' becomes law when there is sufficient support, as in the case of people not wanting your degeneracy to become the common morality. Sorry, there is a common morality and one that is necessary to maintain an ordered society. We are not going to let you try to brow beat us, because that is all the strength you can muster, into becoming a totally debauched country…certainly not without a fight. And we now know you folks will not stop at tolerance, you want your depraved deviancy to equate to the normal and upright …nope…that’s out, we take off the gloves and now its bare knuckles… and we are just tougher and smarter…oh and more numerous....you have now awakened the sleeping giant.

    Majority rules is how we govern, cap’n…better get used to it as well, its not just an appeal to popularity, it’s the Constitutional framework… get used to it…ha hah ahahahahhaaaaaa…too tooooo funny.

    Oh, and your usual admission of failure, the ubiquitous, in your posts, "proclamation of victory"…wow, what it must be like to be up in there with all that low hanging fertilizer all around…there to be plucked at will…ha ha ha ha…yeah, I have already spent, wasted, too much time on your silliness. I mean its like squeezing a load of your lemons for too long and not getting even a little drip of the fabled juice...nothing...so it is counterproductive to continue the process....But you have at it, being of liberal mindset, that being the more feminine based ideology, you get the last word…go for it cap’n.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •