• 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!

Do you object to gay couples adopting?

Would you allow gay people to adopt?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 59.4%
  • No

    Votes: 41 40.6%

  • Total voters
    101
Lots of colors are in the mirror, but I'm talking about the mirror itself, not what it reflects. If you take the mirror out of its frame and strip off any backing to the back of the reflective layer, you will see it is a dull silver pigment, which of course, is part of the mirror. Otherwise it would be a sheet of glass, which is truly colorless.

The mirror is the total package. It's everything together. When you take off the backing, it is like taking the lens out of a telescope. Without the lens, all you have is a tube. A tube that can be transformed into a telescope.

By destroying the mirror in order to determine the color, you are not checking the color of the mirror, only the color of it's components.
 
Do porn stars have dressing rooms?

Where do seedless grapes come from?

How do you throw away a garbage can?
 
Then 'splain this to me Lucy. They say in outdoor magazines that it matters not if a hunter is wearing blaze orange in the woods because the whitetail deer only sees things in shades of gray. I want to know which whitetail deer told them that?

The bigger question would be if a deer told the people who want to kill him that, why would they believe him?

And in reality, the deer is probably not only seeing shades of gray, but instead is color-blind in much the same way I am color-blind. Orange is camouflaged to me, whereas camouflage sticks out.

Strange, but true. It deals with the intensity of the light/color.
 
Can someone tell me what all this has to do with gay couples adopting?
 
Lots of colors are in the mirror, but I'm talking about the mirror itself, not what it reflects. If you take the mirror out of its frame and strip off any backing to the back of the reflective layer, you will see it is a dull silver pigment, which of course, is part of the mirror. Otherwise it would be a sheet of glass, which is truly colorless.

The mirror has no color it reflects all visible light.
 
No, no no. You can re-polish the damaged mirror, and rebuild the damaged house. And you can do so with right, left, or both hands.

The mirror is the reflective portion, much as the "house" is a shelter. Repairing it is recreating that which was destroyed.

Even if reparable, it ceases to be a mirror once its loses the ability to reflect. Once repaired, it becomes a mirror again.
 
The bigger question would be if a deer told the people who want to kill him that, why would they believe him?

And in reality, the deer is probably not only seeing shades of gray, but instead is color-blind in much the same way I am color-blind. Orange is camouflaged to me, whereas camouflage sticks out.

Strange, but true. It deals with the intensity of the light/color.

I ALMOST was rejected from joining the military due to my color blindness. There was no way I could see the number embedded in all those colored dots.

I'm not actually color blind, per se, but I live in a world of 16 crayolas.
 
I ALMOST was rejected from joining the military due to my color blindness. There was no way I could see the number embedded in all those colored dots.

I'm not actually color blind, per se, but I live in a world of 16 crayolas.

That's eight more than me!!!!

P.S. I actually was rejected from all the good jobs in the military for my color-blindness, which is a fairly extreme variant.
 
The mirror is the reflective portion, much as the "house" is a shelter. Repairing it is recreating that which was destroyed.

Even if reparable, it ceases to be a mirror once its loses the ability to reflect. Once repaired, it becomes a mirror again.
Semantics. Its still a mirror, just damaged. *shrug*
 
The mirror is the total package. It's everything together. When you take off the backing, it is like taking the lens out of a telescope. Without the lens, all you have is a tube. A tube that can be transformed into a telescope.

By destroying the mirror in order to determine the color, you are not checking the color of the mirror, only the color of it's components.
When you take off the paper backing you exposed the silver pigment, but its still a function mirror. I say that your theory has been debunked and you have four options.
1. Hold the mirror up with your right hand and "little tucker" in your left.
2. Hold the mirror up with your left hand and "little tucker" in your right.
3. Stand the mirror on the floor and hold "little tucker" with both hands.
4. Punt.
 
When you take off the paper backing you exposed the silver pigment, but its still a function mirror. I say that your theory has been debunked and you have four options.
1. Hold the mirror up with your right hand and "little tucker" in your left.
2. Hold the mirror up with your left hand and "little tucker" in your right.
3. Stand the mirror on the floor and hold "little tucker" with both hands.
4. Punt.

I need a magnifying mirror for all that. (except punting)
 
So why would CC call me a wife beater? Because I don't agree with him on this issue?

That is between you two. I am not aware of this situation and decline to include myself.
 
That's eight more than me!!!!

P.S. I actually was rejected from all the good jobs in the military for my color-blindness, which is a fairly extreme variant.

I don't get it...
I also failed the color blind test (having to see those damn numbers imbedded in the color dot thingies)

But I think that I see colors just fine. What is it then? I have never bothered to find out..
 
I don't get it...
I also failed the color blind test (having to see those damn numbers imbedded in the color dot thingies)

But I think that I see colors just fine. What is it then? I have never bothered to find out..

Perhaps you don't see colors as well as you think?
 
I don't get it...
I also failed the color blind test (having to see those damn numbers imbedded in the color dot thingies)

But I think that I see colors just fine. What is it then? I have never bothered to find out..

There are different levels and types of colorblindness. Deuteranopia, Deuteranomly, Protanopia, Protanamoly, Tritinopia, and Tritanomaly

Each one has different characteristics.

The milder varients are the "anomaly" classes. These are the most common forms (specifically Deuteranomoly) and people with these variants can actually go through life without having any major issues about it. These two are caused by having one type of cone on the retina that still works, but not as well as they should. Most people who have these types of colorblindness have very little effect in their daily lives because one color type will "shift" towards it's opposite, but they can still see some degree of that color. They can name colors correctly at a high rate of accuracy. This is actually due to the person learning that certain colors that they see are associated with the names that people label them. They might not see the same color as everyone else, but they are not really impeded by this fact.

The three more serious forms are caused by the complete absence of a certain cone type. For these people (like me) it is more obvious even at a very young age. They are effectively totally blind to one color on the spectrum. They will still be able to name colors correctly more often than not, for the same reasons, but they will have a higher rate of inaccuracy because they are effectively blind to one color. These forms which are called dichromacy, are rarer than the trichromatic anomalies described in the preceding paragraph are.

So in essence, just failing a colorblindness test does not mean that you are really "colorblind". In actuality, it is much more likely that you are slightly impaired. I'm considered to be truly colorblind because all greens appear brown to me (even though I correctly label things green about 50% of the time, but I have a theory as to why that happens.)

Eitehr way, I leave you all with this: (I can't read it :mrgreen:)


colorblind.gif
 
There are different levels and types of colorblindness. Deuteranopia, Deuteranomly, Protanopia, Protanamoly, Tritinopia, and Tritanomaly

Each one has different characteristics.

The milder varients are the "anomaly" classes. These are the most common forms (specifically Deuteranomoly) and people with these variants can actually go through life without having any major issues about it. These two are caused by having one type of cone on the retina that still works, but not as well as they should. Most people who have these types of colorblindness have very little effect in their daily lives because one color type will "shift" towards it's opposite, but they can still see some degree of that color. They can name colors correctly at a high rate of accuracy. This is actually due to the person learning that certain colors that they see are associated with the names that people label them. They might not see the same color as everyone else, but they are not really impeded by this fact.

The three more serious forms are caused by the complete absence of a certain cone type. For these people (like me) it is more obvious even at a very young age. They are effectively totally blind to one color on the spectrum. They will still be able to name colors correctly more often than not, for the same reasons, but they will have a higher rate of inaccuracy because they are effectively blind to one color. These forms which are called dichromacy, are rarer than the trichromatic anomalies described in the preceding paragraph are.

So in essence, just failing a colorblindness test does not mean that you are really "colorblind". In actuality, it is much more likely that you are slightly impaired. I'm considered to be truly colorblind because all greens appear brown to me (even though I correctly label things green about 50% of the time, but I have a theory as to why that happens.)

Eitehr way, I leave you all with this: (I can't read it :mrgreen:)


colorblind.gif


I see some orange dots scattered about... and thanks for the rest.
 
Sorry, but I wear tees, and never alone. When it's hot I wear a golf shirt or a light button-down. And I've never thought of beating my lovely bride.

IT already answered this.

The stats are simple though. The Census has information that gives us the percent gay households THAT ARE COHABITATING COUPLES to all households THAT ARE COHABITATING COUPLES that participated in the Long Survey. That works out to 1%, which we can assume means that the percentage of gay singles is 1% of all singles, and therefore the percent gays is 1% of society as a whole.

My addition above shows the error in your logic. Further, single heterosexual households are equal to heterosexual households that have couples. For homosexuals, single households outnumber homosexual households with couples by 4-6 times. Hence, the data does not translate to 1% of the population being homosexual; 3%-7% are.

Now tell me, are you choosing option #3? Because if not, you seem to be going with option #4...and in that case, you need to stop, now.
 
I think when you portray yourself to be the captain of courtesy, you set yourself up to use language which cannot be reasonably construed to be discourteous. In this case, the phrase "white shirt" could easily have been substituted for "wife beater" and have the same or better literary effect with no possibility for a discourteous inference. The use of discourteous inferences by this fellow can only imply that he is intellectually disingenuous with his self title.

You have no idea what "CaptainCourtesy" actually means.
 
....



My addition above shows the error in your logic. Further, single heterosexual households are equal to heterosexual households that have couples. For homosexuals, single households outnumber homosexual households with couples by 4-6 times. Hence, the data does not translate to 1% of the population being homosexual; 3%-7% are.
.....
You have no evidence to support your conclusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom