• 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

Empirica said:
Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion.


I'm sure there are others but those are the first that come to mind off the top of my head__You ask for it so there you are__Let the rant begin.
Click to expand...

Generally by whom? Since gays engage in sex acts that a large portion(most in some cases) that straits do as well, it would be pretty ironic. In point of fact, I can't think of any one I know who consider such things as oral sex and mutual masturbation repulsive(in general, I do know some who find it distasteful to perform specifically) nor immoral. That right there encompasses the majority of sex that gays have. So I am sure you can document this wild assed and highly improbably claim.

Also note that the tying of gays in with all those other things is a well known and piss poor tactic.

A moral society would never allow perversion to be legitimized by law but judging by the course western civilization has recently taken, Im sure you will get your wish.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you are working with your own view of what is moral. I doubt many people actually have the same set of morals.

Once again, most people honestly don't care what you do as long as you don't expect them to accept and condone your lifestyle by allowing it to corrupt and cheapin the sacred institution of marriage, which is foremost in the development of happy healthy well balanced children.
Click to expand...

Well that is a painfully stupid statement. Right now SSM is polling over 50 % acceptance. You have shown no evidence that SSM corrupts nor cheapens marriage. We do know however that children do best in 2 parent households, and that the gender and orientation of those two parents looks to be irrelevant.
 
Top Cat said:
Of course, as you always do, you'll be offering some data to support yet another contention of yours?
Click to expand...
This was a direct answer to a direct question by Redress, asking for my opinion__You seriously believe my "contention" is false?

If you were to request "data" to varify this, I would remind you of the opposition to gay marriage at nation wide ballot boxes.

Even california, the gayest state, passed Proposition-8__Does that support my "contention"?

Oh wait...Hilarious. No doubt the 50% divorce rate is directly related to gay people having sex. Sacred my yass.
Click to expand...
The widespread and ever escalating acceptance of immorality of the past 5 decades has absolutely impacted the divorce rate as well as unwed birth rate, abortion rate, STD rate and every other issue of morality.
Do you have any idea how insane what you're saying sounds?
Click to expand...
Top Cat, you are at the top of the list of least intelligent members of DP I have thus far encountered.

For this reason I can no longer waste time responding to your senseless and pathetic posts__I wish you well.
 
Empirica said:
This was a direct answer to a direct question by Redress, asking for my opinion__You seriously believe my "contention" is false?
Click to expand...

You didn't give an opinion, though. You made a definitive claim about what "normal people in civilized society" "generally find repulsive".

If you had limited to your opinion, your sentence would have read as follows "Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally Things that I find repulsive."

See that part in bold, especially the pronoun I underlined, italicized and made larger? That's the bit that would make the statement an opinion statement. Frankly, I'm surprised I have to explain such simple composition rules to you, but apparently simple grade-school-level English composition was not covered in your "better-than-Columbia-and-Harvard" educational studies.

Now, since instead of making a sentence like the one described above, you instead wrote: "Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion." you are making a claim that can be verified and supported by evidence. The part in bold is again key to undestanding why this is so.

What you will first need to do in order to verify and support your claim is A. Define "civilized society" B. Define "normal people" within that civilized society. C. Show that they find All of the acts you have described repulsive (What this means is that simply showing that necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality are considered repulsive does not cut the mustard) and D. that religion plays no role.

I expect that you should be able to provide me with an essay in using sources following either the APA or MLA guidelines (I'm not picky), given the superb education level you have attained. Scholarly articles only, please. I expect a higher standard from one of your educational stature.
 
Empirica said:
And this is your idea of knowing how to debate?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Pointing out the ignorance of another is completely appropriate. It's called REFUTING. That's what I just did. Remember, when you post something that is completely false and/or makes no sense, it will get pointed out. If you don't like that, don't do it.


Between rebuttals such as yours and critisizing spelling for lack of argument, I'm more than a little dissapointed in the debating skills of the local competition!
Click to expand...

I've told you before. From what I've seen, between your posts being nothing but logical fallacies and you presenting nothing but misinformation and/or opinions masquerading as facts, you have zero debating skills. You might want to educate yourself on some of these topics before discussing them.
 
Now, lets demonstrate what a poor debater you actually are:

Empirica said:
Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are others but those are the first that come to mind off the top of my head__You ask for it so there you are__Let the rant begin.
Click to expand...

In bold. This could fall under the appeal to popularity or the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Also, since "normal" is a value judgement, NOT an absolute, your use of the term is an opinion and proves nothing. If you want to actually prove something you need to define your terms and give evidence... two things that seem absolutely foreign to you.

That's fail #1.

A moral society would never allow perversion to be legitimized by law but judging by the course western civilization has recently taken, Im sure you will get your wish.
Click to expand...

In bold. Another appeal to emotion and the masking of opinions pretending to be facts. Your perception of what is moral and perverse is YOURS and is not universal. Didn't anyone teach you to not speak in absolutes, as doing so makes you absolutely look foolish?

That is fail #2.

Once again, most people honestly don't care what you do as long as you don't expect them to accept and condone your lifestyle by allowing it to corrupt and cheapin the sacred institution of marriage, which is foremost in the development of happy healthy well balanced children.
Click to expand...

In bold. You do it AGAIN. Appeal to emotion logical fallacy... which seems to be all you've got. Tell me, to ALL radical libertarian conservatives have nothing but emotional arguments, devoid of facts like you? Beyond that, you obviously have no knowledge of facts, which have proven that children raised in households with gay parents do as well as those with straight parents. Now, if you dispute that, I expect that you will provide evidence. I doubt you will do so, since it is apparent that your debating skills are FAR to meager to mount any kind of reasonable defense, but one can hope.

Educate yourself on this issue.
 
Empirica said:
This was a direct answer to a direct question by Redress, asking for my opinion__You seriously believe my "contention" is false?
Click to expand...

I most certainly do. Just as I don't believe your education claim. I have no reason to believe either are true.

If you were to request "data" to varify this, I would remind you of the opposition to gay marriage at nation wide ballot boxes.
Click to expand...

Well, then it should be really easy for you to back up your claims won't it? I'll hold my breath. In the meantime, please learn how to use spell check for crying out loud! "Verify"

Even california, the gayest state, passed Proposition-8__Does that support my "contention"?
Click to expand...

No it most certainly doesn't. You're equating an election to your statements that most people consider homosexuality immoral. Surely even you see the difference between those two conversations?

The widespread and ever escalating acceptance of immorality of the past 5 decades has absolutely impacted the divorce rate as well as unwed birth rate, abortion rate, STD rate and every other issue of morality.
Click to expand...

Oh please enlighten me to yet another data resource to back up yet another claim....

Top Cat, you are at the top of the list of least intelligent members of DP I have thus far encountered.
Click to expand...

Really? And yet as an ill educated liberal I can spell verify and understand the difference between it's and its...imagine that? Cutting and running are you? Is that what you do when you get called out?

For this reason I can no longer waste time responding to your senseless and pathetic posts__I wish you well.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I can't prove any of my extremist contentions are factual and you keep asking me to offer some sort of substantiation. Since I can't do that, I am going to ignore you.
 
Empirica said:
The widespread and ever escalating acceptance of immorality of the past 5 decades has absolutely impacted the divorce rate as well as unwed birth rate, abortion rate, STD rate and every other issue of morality.
Click to expand...

Ooops. Looks like the facts aren't on your side again... Looks like we need more gay sex, not less!


Divorce rate drops to lowest since 1970

NEW YORK (AP) — By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.
Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.
Click to expand...

Divorce rate drops to lowest since 1970 - USATODAY.com


Abortion Rate...

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the U.S., abortion rates are at their lowest level in three decades — which gives both sides in the culture wars something to celebrate and plenty to fight over, while the rest of us try to figure out what happened.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html#ixzz1h2mCzFT6

STD Rates are really the only rate you quoted that makes any sense. Unwed birth rates have what to do with gay sex? Or do you need some help understanding how that doesn't work that way?
 
Last edited:
Guys. Don't confuse Empirica with facts. Her posts demonstrate that she wouldn't know what to do with them... similar to most radical rightwing libertarians.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I never said your opinion was valueless. I said it was valueless when you try to pretend it is a fact. And of course you won't/can't answer my question about normal, honestly. If you did, you would have to admit that your position isn't factually based, but based on opinion, morals, or just personal feelings. All fine, but not factual.
Click to expand...

ive answered your question more than once...this is the last time...asking a question ad nauseum doesnt win debates....

This is quite simple really...you just dont want to accept it...

Dictionary Definition of Normal:

nor·mal 
adjective

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
serving to establish a standard.

If homosexuality was normal...94% would be homosexual and 6% heterosexual...we know that its just the opposite.
The purpose of two sexs having sex is to procreate, thats the way NATURE or GOD depending on what you believe obviously intended...we know two men and two women cannot procreate, therefore that is not NORMAL coupling.
You cannot change that by saying over and over redundantly that two men having sex is NORMAL and two women having sex is NORMAL, that is merely your opinion and does not translate into any facts. ....it is absolutely not normal and its absurd to try and force that belief on to others by saying it over and over, it doesnt change that, whether you or anyone like it. This is the last time I will respond to that question.
Lastly your statement :


I said it was valueless when you try to pretend it is a fact. And of course you won't/can't answer my question about normal, honestly. If you did, you would have to admit that your position isn't factually based, but based on opinion, morals, or just personal feelings. All fine, but not factual.

Its your opinion that is not factually based, its your opinion that is based on your personal feelings...you have never provided any proof of two men and two women coupling is the norm...because you simply cannot...all you can do capt is redundantly ad nauseum use the same repetitive arguments and questions to try and overwhelm the argument.
Now my question to you....define how homosexuality is the NORM and how its normal.
 
Last edited:
Empirica said:
Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion.
Click to expand...

Okay. Who is advocating for those?
 
God, what a tedious thread this must have been to participate in. It illustrates perfectly one of my two life rules: 1)Never eat yellow snow and 2)never get into a debate with a teenager who's been home schooled her whole life.
 
Cardinal said:
God, what a tedious thread this must have been to participate in. It illustrates perfectly one of my two life rules: 1)Never eat yellow snow and 2)never get into a debate with a teenager who's been home schooled her whole life.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously?
 
Cardinal said:
God, what a tedious thread this must have been to participate in. It illustrates perfectly one of my two life rules: 1)Never eat yellow snow and 2)never get into a debate with a teenager who's been home schooled her whole life.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow, that explains alot.
 
Cardinal said:
God, what a tedious thread this must have been to participate in. It illustrates perfectly one of my two life rules: 1)Never eat yellow snow and 2)never get into a debate with a teenager who's been home schooled her whole life.
Click to expand...

The worst thing about being home schooled is that you never really get over the crush you had on your third grade teacher.
 
Tucker Case said:
You didn't give an opinion, though. You made a definitive claim about what "normal people in civilized society" "generally find repulsive".

If you had limited to your opinion, your sentence would have read as follows "Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally Things that I find repulsive."

See that part in bold, especially the pronoun I underlined, italicized and made larger? That's the bit that would make the statement an opinion statement. Frankly, I'm surprised I have to explain such simple composition rules to you, but apparently simple grade-school-level English composition was not covered in your "better-than-Columbia-and-Harvard" educational studies.

Now, since instead of making a sentence like the one described above, you instead wrote: "Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion." you are making a claim that can be verified and supported by evidence. The part in bold is again key to undestanding why this is so.

What you will first need to do in order to verify and support your claim is A. Define "civilized society" B. Define "normal people" within that civilized society. C. Show that they find All of the acts you have described repulsive (What this means is that simply showing that necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality are considered repulsive does not cut the mustard) and D. that religion plays no role.

I expect that you should be able to provide me with an essay in using sources following either the APA or MLA guidelines (I'm not picky), given the superb education level you have attained. Scholarly articles only, please. I expect a higher standard from one of your educational stature.
Click to expand...
Yea, I'll get right on that Tuck.

I have absolutely nothing better to do than varify the obvious to someone who doesn't recognize that proposition 8 was an open and shut indicator of main stream americas intolerance of perversion and immorality.

And yes, I am part of the main stream america that believes all those things I listed are sick perversions, as if I really needed to explain that__I think you people believe that playing dumb strenghens your position.
 
Empirica said:
Yea, I'll get right on that Tuck.

I have absolutely nothing better to do than varify the obvious to someone who doesn't recognize that proposition 8 was an open and shut indicator of main stream americas intolerance of perversion and immorality.

And yes, I am part of the main stream america that believes all those things I listed are sick perversions, as if I really needed to explain that__I think you people believe that playing dumb strenghens your position.
Click to expand...

Actually you are part of the abnormal America that believes that what gays do in the bedroom is important. It is a surprisingly rare point of view these days. Since you won't "varify" your comments, they are basically worthless.
 
Empirica said:
I have absolutely nothing better to do than varify the obvious to someone who doesn't recognize that proposition 8 was an open and shut indicator of main stream americas intolerance of perversion and immorality.
Click to expand...

Everybody hop on board the fail-train, Empirca's driving!

First, let's go back and look at your statement again, because it seems even you have forgotten it:

"Sexual acts involving pets or farm animals, children, dead bodies and same gender partners are generally considered repulsive and immoral sex acts to normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion."

I made that last part real big so that you can't dodge away from it like a fat kid dodges broccoli.

Now let's look at a few things that illuminate the truly spectacular nature of your complete and utter fail:

1. Prop 8 was only about same sex marriage. Nothing about it can be used to indicate that "normal people of a civilized society, regardless of religion," consider same gender sex "repulsive and immoral". It can only be used to indicate that the majority of those who voted felt that same sex marriage should not be legal.

2. Despite the apparently atrocious nature of the geography lessons you received in your "better-than-columbia-and-harvard" education, "California" is not "America". It is a state.

3. You have done nothing to demonstrate that those who voted for prop 8 were :
  • Normal
  • A part of a Civilized Society
  • Not influenced by religion

4. Even if you could somehow rectify all of the problems found in 1-3 (Which is only possible in a universe where logic is completely replaced by magical unicorns ridden by eccentric leprechauns that have rutabagas breasts and lollipop nipples), you have done nothing to generalize those findings to all normal people in all civilized societies.

Thus, you have failed. But at least you have done so spectacularly.
 
There's a whole lotta fail on this thread, including the pile-on in progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom