• 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!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

texmaster said:
The only fallacy is your inability to understand the defintion of descrimination even after it was provided for you.
Click to expand...

Oops. You're back to misspelling discrimination again. Texmaster, no one is obligated to refute a clearly fallacious argument. You present these fallacies as if they are deserving of a response. You've gotten far more response on this thread than your pathetically constructed arguments deserve.
 
texmaster said:
Typical Catz. Running away from the argument because you can't debate it.


Thanks for staying predictable.
Click to expand...

Who's running? You clearly aren't understanding the issues here, or able to formulate a cohesive argument. That makes responding to you on any kind of logical level very difficult.
 
A discussion about gays...has any one used the hysterical child molester or bestiality fallacies yet in a sad attempt to appeal to emotion?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oops. You're back to misspelling discrimination again.
Click to expand...

And you've never misspelled a word in a forum Catz? Can you get any more childish?

Texmaster, no one is obligated to refute a clearly fallacious argument. You present these fallacies as if they are deserving of a response. You've gotten far more response on this thread than your pathetically constructed arguments deserve.
Click to expand...

Claiming everything is a "fallacy" then running away is exactly what I expect from you Catz. Thanks for showing your continued lack of backbone in debating skill.
 
texmaster said:
Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them?.
Click to expand...

Can you explain the relationship between this statement and the case law that you're attempting to challenge?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Who's running? You clearly aren't understanding the issues here, or able to formulate a cohesive argument. That makes responding to you on any kind of logical level very difficult.
Click to expand...

You are. Answer my question about partial birth abortion advocates.

Show us you have at least some courage.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Can you explain the relationship between this statement and the case law that you're attempting to challenge?
Click to expand...

If you read the argument you would have seen it. The argument you and others have used against letting people who agree with NAMBLA in their group is because they believe in something that is against the law. If someone believes in partial birth abortion and it is illegal in that state then they too believe in something that is against the law. The same thing applies to people who believe in gay marriage if they live in a state where it is against the law.


Starting to get the picture or do I need to break out the crayons for you?
 
texmaster said:
And you've never misspelled a word in a forum Catz?
Click to expand...

I've never misspelled discrimination repeatedly on a thread about discrimination. :D

Can you get any more childish?
Click to expand...

Do you think these kinds of puny ad hominems bother me? Of course I can be more childish. I'm a DM.

Claiming everything is a "fallacy" then running away is exactly what I expect from you Catz. Thanks for showing your continued lack of backbone in debating skill.
Click to expand...

Pointing out a fallacious argument is all that is required. When you formulate a rational and cohesive argument on this subject, I'll be happy to address it. Until then, I'm not going to spend time refuting an argument that is essentially irrational. This is about you, and your prejudices about gays, and your need to ahve other people condone those prejudices.

Tell me, texmaster.

Would you be okay with student fees supporting an Islamic organization that refuses membership to non-Islamic members?

Would you be okay with student fees supporting a black students-only club that discriminates against white students?
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
If you read the argument you would have seen it. The argument you and others have used against letting people who agree with NAMBLA in their group is because they believe in something that is against the law. If someone believes in partial birth abortion and it is illegal in that state then they too believe in something that is against the law. The same thing applies to people who believe in gay marriage if they live in a state where it is against the law.


Starting to get the picture or do I need to break out the crayons for you?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between believing in something and committing a criminal act or advocating for that act to be committed. I'm sorry that these two things are indistinguishable in your paradigms.
 
Redress said:
A discussion about gays...has any one used the hysterical child molester or bestiality fallacies yet in a sad attempt to appeal to emotion?
Click to expand...

Its not an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to logic. You cannot claim to support a law that says you cannot descriminate against people then turn around and do exactly that based on your own personal morality.
 
texmaster said:
Its not an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to logic. You cannot claim to support a law that says you cannot descriminate against people then turn around and do exactly that based on your own personal morality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. That's why the comparison is always to things like pedophilia or bestiality and not some more benign comparison...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
There is a difference between believing in something and committing a criminal act or advocating for that act to be committed. I'm sorry that these two things are indistinguishable in your paradigms.
Click to expand...

LOL Now you are just ducking the issue. If you live in a state that says partial birth abortion is illegal and you believe in partial birth abortion you believe in breaking the law. Just like NAMLBA.


If you are going to claim otherwise, explain the difference.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Now you are just ducking the issue. If you live in a state that says partial birth abortion is illegal and you believe in partial birth abortion you believe in breaking the law. Just like NAMLBA.


If you are going to claim otherwise, explain the difference.
Click to expand...

In what states are partial birth abortions illegal? Are you suggesting that student fees should fund an abortion club?
 
Redress said:
Yeah, that's it. That's why the comparison is always to things like pedophilia or bestiality and not some more benign comparison...
Click to expand...

I gave you 2 others. Partial birth abortion and gay marriage. In some states those are illegal. Please explain how it is different to advocate for one believe that is illegal in one state but its not applicable for something else illegal in the same state?
 
texmaster said:
What I'm saying is that groups should have the right to exclude people who do not share their values on personal choice. Thats the whole idea of a group, to form a partnership of like minded people. You on the other hand claim to want no discrimination but when it comes to people who believe in certain practices you don't like, then its ok to discriminate. Its the height of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread, but is someone saying that groups *shouldn't* be allowed to select their own members? Or just that if they do so in a certain manner, they should not receive public funding?

I agree 100% that any group should be legally allowed to "discriminate" against anyone regarding the group's membership. They should be legally allowed to forbid or allow whomever the hell they want, for whatever reasons they wish. However, they shouldn't receive public funding.
 
texmaster said:
Then expect to be called on it when you do it.
Click to expand...

Call it until you turn blue, sport. Write it down, record the URL, take a screenshot. I don't give a ****. :shrug:

Not in the eyes of this law. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

In the eyes of any law when you are dealing with criminal activity. So no, you're wrong. Again. As always.

So what? There are plenty of groups that break the law in sit in protests where they refuse to move and are arrested by the police. So by your own defintion they should not be included either because they advocate breaking the law
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience is breaking the law. So yes, if the group doesn't want an advocate of criminal activity associated with them, by all means, they have that right.

Try again.
Click to expand...


Don't need to; unlike you, I got it right the first time.

Its not a matter of advocacy as you well know. Its about you coming to grips with what the law actually is allowing in by this general argument of "discrimination"

If you actually took time to think about it you might learn something.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know the actual definition of "discrimination" if it came up and bit you on your NAMBLA card. Hell, you just finally learned how to spell the damned word. And here you are using it to advocate for the inclusion of NAMBLA on some fallacious attempt at interpreting law to your advantage rather than what it actually says. I could almost understand you doing this in a gay marriage debate but, damn...doing it in an effort to legitimize NAMBLA is pretty sad.
 
rivrrat said:
I haven't read the whole thread, but is someone saying that groups *shouldn't* be allowed to select their own members? Or just that if they do so in a certain manner, they should not receive public funding?

I agree 100% that any group should be legally allowed to "discriminate" against anyone regarding the group's membership. They should be legally allowed to forbid or allow whomever the hell they want, for whatever reasons they wish. However, they shouldn't receive public funding.
Click to expand...

Then your views are in complete agreement with both the supreme court, and most members of this thread (with the notable exception of Texmaster).
 
Redress said:
A discussion about gays...has any one used the hysterical child molester or bestiality fallacies yet in a sad attempt to appeal to emotion?
Click to expand...

Well Tex seems to be all about the inclusion of NAMBLA if teh gays get any kind of rights so...does him cutting loose on that front count?
 
texmaster said:
As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
Click to expand...
Why would someone be forbidden from joining a club because they believed that partial birth abortion should be legalized? Are you suggesting that people should be discriminated against on the basis of their ideas?

Still waiting for your answer.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on yours. See above.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Would you be okay with student fees supporting an Islamic organization that refuses membership to non-Islamic members?

Would you be okay with student fees supporting a black students-only club that discriminates against white students?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your answer. ;)
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Why would someone be forbidden from joining a club because they believed that partial birth abortion should be legalized? Are you suggesting that people should be discriminated against on the basis of their ideas?
Click to expand...

What tex doesn't understand (well, one of the things tex doesn't understand) is that advocacy for decriminalization does not equate to advocacy for breaking the law as it stands.
 
jallman said:
Well Tex seems to be all about the inclusion of NAMBLA if teh gays get any kind of rights so...does him cutting loose on that front count?
Click to expand...

In the words of Laurie Anderson: "Oh boy, right again".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom