Warspite
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 478
- Reaction score
- 97
- Location
- Here and There
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Binding nonetheless.
So you advocate tyranny then? Very unwise.
Binding nonetheless.
Just a traitor to your version of a Republic.
This is what the good Captain does. Rather than argue content, he argues process. My content cannot be addressed, it is my questions that have yet to be answered.
But keep talking about me and no one else might realize you're wrong. Cause...you are.:lol:
And that's bringing religion into it. Please read carefully what you type and try not to further reduce your argument to rubble by lying.
If you cannot argue with proper process, why should we pay any heed to the content? Debating relies on far more than throwing (incorrect in your case) points at people.
No, traitor to a certain Republic that was founded in 1776 Common Era in opposition to tyranny such as you so ardently support.
This is what Charles does, though. He has spent this entire thread misrepresenting, avoiding all the arguments and points that prove him wrong (he still hasn't given any indication that he understands the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, nor has he addressed all the links and evidence I provided), and making completely illogical arguments. It's all he's got in his bag of tricks. This is why his position has been so thoroughly demolished and why he cannot respond to issues presented.
Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion is what I wrote, please read carefully.
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.
Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:
So....had the Supreme Court or some Executive ruled say......that guns couldn't be owned by the citizenry....and I mentioned that to outlaw guns, we'd need a COnstitutional change....that no Exec or Robe could make that decision....would I be a traitor as well?
Oops. Your silly argument destroyed by a single example. Here's where I say....next in line please.
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.
Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."
Absolutely right.
If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.
SO I am assuming that you would be fine with putting all the rights/privileges that you enjoy to a popular vote as well?
It would be fine with you if a law were passed that said "Only Jews can get married"...as long as the people voted for it right?
How about a law that says only white people can be married? I'm assuming that you would be fine with that as well, so long as the majority of the people voted for it right?
For the third time, Sic Semper Tyrannis to the majority. :2razz:
I agree....that's where these people are completely hypocritical and wrong.
They are fine with putting "other " people's rights to a popular vote...but would scream and hollar if anyone dared put their rights to the same vote.
Oh I agree it's a "reasonable" argument, the problem is that it's a rather weak argument -- thoroughly unconvincing. What limited "logic" exists in your argument could also apply to civil unions, and could also apply to just about any relationship you could think up.I'm not really sure I get the joke. Did you even read the link?
Same sex marriage provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. It's also beneficial the children's emotional and social development. Logic dictates that it is a reasonable argument because it is supported with evidence.
Oh I agree it's a "reasonable" argument, the problem is that it's a rather weak argument -- thoroughly unconvincing. What limited "logic" exists in your argument could also apply to civil unions, and could also apply to just about any relationship you could think up.
Don't you think it would help kids born of incest if we provided them with legal and financial benefits, endorsed their care, and publicly acknowledged and respected the personal bonds of their parents?
To exaggerate, your "argument" boils down to: we should give people benefits because they can benefit from them.
This is what the good Captain does. Rather than argue content, he argues process. My content cannot be addressed, it is my questions that have yet to be answered.
But keep talking about me and no one else might realize you're wrong. Cause...you are.:lol:
It was no attempt to bring religion into this, I haven't made the first argument concerning religion. You had claimed how "disgusted" you were that I'd allow children to remain at risk. I claimed that not giving children every chance in life was against my religion....trying to point out how silly that was for an argument given your ridiculous argument that you were "disgusted". It was an alike attempt for me to take the moral high ground and both yourself and Warspite jumped all over it. Now...if religion don't play here, those morals being irrelevant...so does the fact that you're disgusted. No one cares. Like you not caring what my religion is, I couldn;t care less if you're repulsed or disgusted. You can't take aim at my content as you know I'm dead on correct here, so...you attack the process. It's trasparent...I just want you to know that.
I couldn't care less for your disgust, the fact that you're trying to take the
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.
Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:
Nothing -- it's showing how hopelessly generic your argument is through use of analogy.First off, you made an irrelevant comparison. What does same sex marriage have to do with incest? Your implication is that they are somehow the same but you might as well be comparing apples and oranges in that respect.
I made no arguments, I was merely pointing out that (again) your argument is hopelessly generic. You have shown no evidence, nor does your argument distinguish the two. It's a poor argument.Second, you made the argument that civil unions are comparable to marriage. This is also incorrect. Marriage guarantees over a thousand different rights that civil unions do not, and is the social recognition of the bond between two people, not just the civil recognition of the bond between two people.
So... what?Third, your exaggeration, which is exactly what it is, fails to account for the fact that millions of children are currently being raised by gay parents and same sex couples, whereas very few are being raised by incestuous couples.
On the contrary, you have shown us that you haven't thought too deeply about the issue, and that your understanding of critical thinking does not extend much beyond references to wikipedia-style listings of logical fallacies - many of which you fail to understand because you repeatedly apply them to premises rather than arguments.Frankly, you have demonstrated magnificently that you do not understand my positoin and that you can be just as illogical as Charles. Congrats.
Nothing -- it's showing how hopelessly generic your argument is through use of analogy.
I made no arguments, I was merely pointing out that (again) your argument is hopelessly generic. You have shown no evidence, nor does your argument distinguish the two. It's a poor argument.
So... what?
On the contrary, you have shown us that you haven't thought too deeply about the issue, and that your understanding of critical thinking does not extend much beyond references to wikipedia-style listings of logical fallacies - many of which you fail to understand because you repeatedly apply them to premises rather than arguments.
It is to be expected. His main argument is based on the completely unsubstantiated and refuted belief that both genders need to be present within a family for children to be raised correctly.
If he doesn't have that, then he has nothing and he knows it, so he will ignore any evidence to the contrary of that belief and will distort any evidence he can to support his view.
Once I realized that much, I understood how pathetic his position was, and I lost my desire to debate him.
Only unsubstantiated if you ignore the mountains of evidence I've provided, while ignoring the reality of no fathers in the home in your own community, meanwhile pushing your now ever present and obvious agenda.
I've asked before perhaps you have different evidence. The fact that no father in the home ranks as the common denominator from drug use, to education level, to prison time served. Your blindness is crowned by your glaring and colossal errors to date on this matter.
Pathetic because you cannot address it. so easy was everyone but a few in here who had an argument you just couldn't address. Emotional and in an untenable position, your argument now chooses to ignore fact and deny reality and reason.
Lots of name calling, no answers to my questions, no addressing the actual topic. This is so fun, but I do wish the opposition would turn its' difficulty level up. I grow tired of the tired arguments of denial CT, do you have anything else...cause I'm about to shelve your theories here as more of the same and call it a day. Another lil sticker for the fuselage on my now famous right wing fighter.