• 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!

Just Plain Wrong

I don't believe they are the exact same thing.

Pretty close.

The only reason you're freaking out over it is because you've never stopped to think about it.
 
That wasn't my question.I asked you if the state should tell you who you can marry. Not just tell you it can't be another man.
I can only tell you what the law is. The law is that states have the right to not allow one man to marry another man. I don't care about your opinion on the subject.
 
I can only tell you what the law is. The law is that states have the right to not allow one man to marry another man. I don't care about your opinion on the subject.

So, why come to a political discussion forum?

I think that post is very telling.

Conservatives don't want to talk about it, they don't want to hear about it, they don't want to be confronted by anything that might challenge their world view. Psychologically, the far-right must be dealing with a lot of fear and insecurity, the way they cling their belief system like a favorite blanket. It almost as if the beliefs give them a sense of self--"I'm with this group, we believe", a sense of belonging to something and finding purpose.
 
I can only tell you what the law is. The law is that states have the right to not allow one man to marry another man.

Then why are you here? This discussion is about what the law ought to be, not what it is.

I don't care about your opinion on the subject.

I noticed. You are closed-minded and afraid to subject your own opinions to challenge. Again, why are you even here?
 
The title says Bachmann Challenged by 8-Year-Old.

A fair fight if there ever was one...

And the OP put her own spin on it, adding the homophobic comment "sick perversion" demeaning people for being born different that her. I call that bigotry.
 
So, why come to a political discussion forum?

I think that post is very telling.

Conservatives don't want to talk about it, they don't want to hear about it, they don't want to be confronted by anything that might challenge their world view. Psychologically, the far-right must be dealing with a lot of fear and insecurity, the way they cling their belief system like a favorite blanket. It almost as if the beliefs give them a sense of self--"I'm with this group, we believe", a sense of belonging to something and finding purpose.

Use a qualifier on those statements or else be deemed guilty of using logical fallacies. Logically, you are not to demonize a group based on the actions of individuals within that group. If that holds for the OWS, then you can be sure that holds for conservatives.
 
Last edited:
That gets struck off the record.

It's true, unless you can cite where your religion says that it is just an opinion. I'll bet it states it as a fact.

You're not going to compare having children recite the national anthem with having a mother use her innocent children as a political pawn and expect to come out unscathed. You can do that with others, but not with me. These are two, clearly different things and you know it.

It's probably good that he learn to defend his mother. I'm sure he'll have to deal with bigots many more times in his life. You don't even know for sure that she put him up to it. Do yourself a favor and go to a local mall and see how many kids approach Santa in the same manner.
 
Yeah, he beat the crap out of her.

You're probably being sarcastic, but if not that's simply untrue.

There was no competition between her and the child.

Whoever titled the issue as "challenged by the child" is misguided.
 
Incorrect. That comparison is ridiculous and I don't have time for such absurd claims. It's like you're saying America is absurd for using its children as political pawns to recite the national anthem in public schools. Last I checked, parents from many ideologies in America have no problem with this. Your comparison fails, and it truly is not worth the effort. If someone else want to refute that ludicrous claim then so be it.

You are using the appeal to popularity fallacy.

What if this mother kept this kid at home and home schooled him to keep him from being "polluted" by the diversity found in a school setting?
 
Are you going to say that having children recite the national anthem is the exact same thing as the woman in this topic, who used her child as a political pawn, is the exact same thing?

Why does it have to be political? Do you think she would have done this with Governor McGreevy?
 
Use a qualifier on those statements or else be deemed guilty of using logical fallacies. Logically, you are not to demonize a group based on the actions of individuals within that group. If that holds for the OWS, then you can be sure that holds for conservatives.

A qualifier, "from what I've observed, the tone of their political speech seems to indicate..."

Happy, pappy?
 
So, why come to a political discussion forum?I think that post is very telling.Conservatives don't want to talk about it, they don't want to hear about it, they don't want to be confronted by anything that might challenge their world view. Psychologically, the far-right must be dealing with a lot of fear and insecurity, the way they cling their belief system like a favorite blanket. It almost as if the beliefs give them a sense of self--"I'm with this group, we believe", a sense of belonging to something and finding purpose.
What is the point about debating opinion? I'll never change yours, just as you'll never change mine. Deal with the facts. The facts are that the states currently have the right to make the decision for themselves. The constitutional question is not set to either side. I think that there have been two posts in this thread that make that fairly clear. Arguing opinion is pointless. Although, I certainly get why liberal would want to do that. Facts are not often on their side so they like to appeal to emotion - such as this gay mother and putting her 8 year old child up to this stunt.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You're entitled to your craven opinion.

It's a fact. Organized religion can be extremely intolerant... Despite teaching and praising the opposite.
 
Last edited:
You're entitled to your craven opinion.

Yes, if only I had the courage to be intolerant. Because intolerance is so very difficult.
 
It's a fact. Organized religion can be extremely intolerant... Despite teaching and praising the opposite.
As long as you use qualifiers, you remain valid. Yes, there are some sects of organized religion, such as the WBC and radicalized Muslims that are extremely intolerant. I fear the meanings you and I place on "intolerance" may be different, though. If I view homosexuality as a sin, and voice my opinion on this website or any other medium of communication, that does not make me intolerant. I tolerate them, and cause them no harm. Intolerance would be killing/harming them. One you have a firm understanding of the word "intolerance," your view corrects itself, and we don't need to have these discussions.
 
Yes, if only I had the courage to be intolerant. Because intolerance is so very difficult.
And I will correct your misapplication of words. Intolerance is the incapacity to endure/refusal to tolerate others' opinions. Do I hear you and understand your opinion? Yes. Do you see me burning people at the stake, like the intolerable Spanish Inquisition? No, you don't. Are you incorrect? Are you misusing words? Yes, quite frankly, you are. This known, your post I am responding to is completely wrong and invalid. Need I quote from an actual dictionary of mine, or more? Maybe give some historical examples of actual intolerance?
 
No, the comparison is good. You just don't like it.

Your just another homosexual cheerleader ..im done reading your no comparision comparisons...
 
Last edited:
I can only tell you what the law is. The law is that states have the right to not allow one man to marry another man. I don't care about your opinion on the subject.

Precisely and HE has to live with that...
 
Why are you here?
Mainly for facts. You can show someone facts that they may not be aware of, which could potentially result in a change of opinion or even I may learn a new fact I hadn't otherwise known. However, more times then not, people of differing opinions will just find a way to incorporate that new fact into their belief or ignore the new fact if they cant incorporate it (the theory behind cognitive dissonance). Arguing over an opinion when all facts are known and agreed to - pointless. Do you think there is anythign I can say to convince you that banning gay marriage is constitutional? Likewise, do you think there is any possibility that you will change LPAST's or my opinions that it isn't?Reminds me of a discussion I had with someone on Governor Walker. He was very upset that Walker was allegedly kicked out of college for cheating. This was very concerning to him. How could we have a cheater working in the government? So, I pointed out to him that Walker wasn't really expelled for cheating (basically just a rumor started by far left), but Ted Kennedy was documented to have been exelled for cheating. Think that changed his mind on Walker or Kennedy? No, he still hated Walker (and viewed him as a cheater) and loved Kennedy. With all the facts out there, what's possible to be gained from further discussion on that topic?
 
Last edited:
And I will correct your misapplication of words.

You're going to have to get up a little earlier and bring your lunch pail if you want to school me.


Intolerance is the incapacity to endure/refusal to tolerate others' opinions.

Yes it is. But it is also the following...

intolerant (ɪnˈtɒlərənt)
adj (foll by of )
1.lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own
2.not able or willing to tolerate or endure: intolerant of noise
Intolerance | Define Intolerance at Dictionary.com
[h=2]Definition of INTOLERANT[/h]1
: unable or unwilling to endure

2
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious mattersb : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

3
: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

in·tol·er·ant·ly adverb
in·tol·er·ant·ness noun

Intolerant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Do I hear you and understand your opinion? Yes.

Actually you do not. As I just clearly pointed out.

Do you see me burning people at the stake, like the intolerable Spanish Inquisition? No, you don't.

Wow, you haven't murdered a homosexual? How noble of you.

Are you incorrect? Are you misusing words? Yes, quite frankly, you are.

Ummmm No. Try again.


This known, your post I am responding to is completely wrong and invalid
.

Wrong yet again. You're really good at that.

Need I quote from an actual dictionary of mine, or more?

What dictionary would that be? The "Coulter Bachmann" Version? Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom