[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[danielpalos]

You have the fallacy of not making a lick of goddamn sense.

i prefer to "flip a coin for my even chance" should we need to resolve it by Other than a Good argument.

 

[Winston]

You have the fallacy of not making a lick of goddamn sense.

here we observe the creature fallacitus manimus in his native habitat, be still for we don't want to make sudden arguments that will trigger his defense response

 

[TheGoverness]

i prefer to "flip a coin for my even chance" should we need to resolve it by Other than a Good argument.

Well, you haven't been making a good argument to begin with.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, you haven't been making a good argument to begin with.

lol. Your alleged rebuttals have been worse, dear.

 

[TheGoverness]

lol. Your alleged rebuttals have been worse, dear.

I haven't rebutted anything. There's no argument here for me to rebuke. It's just nonsense.

 

[Lisa]

It must be a natural right.

Equal protection of the law is part of our franchise.

you are too stupid for me to waste time trying to have a conversation with because you don't understand that phrase and 99.9% of the Constitution. Angel. Mashmont and James' look like Mensa members compared to you.

 

[danielpalos]

I haven't rebutted anything. There's no argument here for me to rebuke. It's just nonsense.

simple rejection is no form of rebuttal or valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

you are too stupid for me to waste time trying to have a conversation with because you don't understand that phrase and 99.9% of the Constitution. Angel. Mashmont and James' look like Mensa members compared to you.

ad hominems are nothing but fallacy, dear. Men have arguments, not gossip.

 

[Lisa]

ad hominems are nothing but fallacy, dear. Men have arguments, not gossip.

Then show me that you can do more than to repeat a phrase that doesn't mean what you think that it does.

 

[Nalu]

Will you ever post anything in plain, understandable english?

I've asked you this since you joined here:
What's your native language?
What translator software do you use?

Not surprisingly you've never answered.

I'm glad it's not just me. I've double read several of his posts and still have no idea what he means.

 

[Nalu]

What. Are. You. Talking. About.

Those posts cannot have been written with a clear head.

 

[danielpalos]

Then show me that you can do more than to repeat a phrase that doesn't mean what you think that it does.

show me you can appeal to more than ignorance, every time i show you, this time.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm glad it's not just me. I've double read several of his posts and still have no idea what he means.

i am "trying to dumb it down for the right wing".

 

[danielpalos]

Those posts cannot have been written with a clear head.

you need more than fallacy to convince me.

 

[Lisa]

show me you can appeal to more than ignorance, every time i show you, this time.

I have a minor in political philosophy and was asked to teach this subject. The fact that you do not agree with what I said doesn't mean that it is an appeal to ignorance. You know almost nothing about the subject but somehow think that repeating one out-of-context phrase is proof that it means something.

 

[Nalu]

thank you for ceding the point and the argument, chic.

Why are you calling a stranger on the internet "dear" and "chick", which you can't even spell? Does condescension make you feel better about yourself?

More to the point, though, no one reading your posts, including me, seems to know what they mean. That's not a deficiency amongst your audience. It means you're an ineffective communicator. Maybe get some sleep and try again later.

 

[Lisa]

i am "trying to dumb it down for the right-wing".

How can I be a conservative when I am on the extreme left? You also do not know the difference between the political left and right.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a minor in political philosophy and was asked to teach this subject. The fact that you do not agree with what I said doesn't mean that it is an appeal to ignorance. You know almost nothing about the subject but somehow think that repeating one out-of-context phrase is proof that it means something.

lol. still not dumb enough for the right wing?

 

[Nalu]

I meet more competent women who know how to talk and ask relevant questions; when i have enough capital.

You pay women to ask you questions? This is just getting more and more bizarre as I read.

 

[danielpalos]

Why are you calling a stranger on the internet "dear" and "chick", which you can't even spell? Does condescension make you feel better about yourself?

More to the point, though, no one reading your posts, including me, seems to know what they mean. That's not a deficiency amongst your audience. It means you're an ineffective communicator. Maybe get some sleep and try again later.

i love winning my arguments. Men have arguments not just gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

Only right wingers are that disingenuous or that dumb; everybody else "already got it by now".

 

[danielpalos]

How can I be a conservative when I am on the extreme left? You also do not know the difference between the political left and right.

lol. you seem to know even less. see how easy that is.

 

[danielpalos]

You pay women to ask you questions? This is just getting more and more bizarre as I read.

went to "pre-judge instead of pre-med, did you"?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

418 pages and still not a single rational, cogent argument against SSM.

Wau.

 

[Nalu]

i am "trying to dumb it down for the right wing".

I don't know who you're referring to, but if you're actually trying to simplify your message, then I suggest you stop because no one has any idea what you're talking about. My guess is that you're not acting at all and that even you don't know what you mean.

 

[Nalu]

you need more than fallacy to convince me.

Convince you of what? I admit I haven't read all 418 pages. The thread is about arguments against same sex marriage. There are no good ones. If you want to be convinced that there are, you will have to find someone who believes that. Even then, that person would not be able to provide a rational justification for prohibiting same sex marriage.