quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: What did I mean by that last thing I said, anyway? Civilization reached it's peak during World War 2,
Never said that, did you?
-pH
No, pH, I never said that Civilization reached it's peak during World War II. You got me.
I know I said earlier that I don't think you're an idiot, but I'm beginning to change my mind. At the very least, you are incredibly dense.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: We're still the most powerful and the most good. But gay people getting married will not hurt our GDP, or military, or technological advances, our international charity, or anything else that can be described as Good or Powerful.
In fact, since we're smarter(*) than you lot, making us happy and more productive will make us stronger, better and more powerful.
BTW: the bible says nothing against lesbians. At the very least you should let us get married, even if you ban gay male marriage, right? Also the bible says nothing against polygamous marriage. How about letting them have a go? Are you sure you wish to lay your argument at God's feet?
Pix
(*) Mostly anecdotal but I've noticed a disproportionate number of smart people who are gay/bi or les. Now this might just be I tend to hang around smart people, but I think it's becuase the really dumb ones never figure out their gay and drag down the het average and let ours go higher.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Yes, stupid-head. I was unwilling to admit that I was wrong about something I never even said. Now go away, the grown-ups are talking.
(Emphasis mine)
If you're going to say you never said something when you did in fact say it (especially on the same page), then don't be surprised when you're called on it.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Hmm. It was 1976 when Nebraska became the first state to abolish the marital exemption for rape.
1976. And that was the FIRST state to do it. Though I suppose a man being exempt from prosecution for raping his wife could be argued to different, in some semantic way, from it actually being legal to do so, I'd have to say there is little effective difference.
This is merely presented as proof that the Western world has not necessarily been spiralling into collapse since WWII. We didn't nuke Japan from a high ground quite as lofty as you seem to assume.
This is in response to what you said.
Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse. That is exactly what I said. What is this, amateur hour? At least when TomDavidson uses logical fallacies in his arguments, he puts some thought into it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
quote: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff.
It was in response to the above statement, which implied that the legality of marital rape was made up. Not to the idea that the world was better before teh GAY! happened.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexuality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Moral relativism is the cause. We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded.
If homosexuality is a symptom of "moral relativism," then do you consider it a choice?
quote:The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us.
Really? Did you know we also practiced eugenics and forced sterilization in the 20s and 30s? It's those good Judeo-Christian values at work.
quote:Your gonna win this Tom, and the rest of you "progressive" types. Your rhetoric is great. And mark my words, the spoils of war you win will be a destroyed nation, economic collapse, and the option of accepting Allah as your God and Muhommed is his prophet, or a sword through your neck.
Wow. Who knew two men being love could destroy an entire nation? Man, Canada and most of Europe's screwed then. I guess we should just follow the example of the Middle-East and kill those homosexuals before they get a chance to destroy the US, huh?
quote:You want to change that. As far as I'm concerned, you may as well be making the argument that marriage can be between a man and a fish, or a man and his sister.
Wow. Did you know a fish isn't counted as a human being, but a gay person is? Wild, right? Likewise, a fish can't enter into a marriage contract because it cannot give consent.
Oh, and a man can't marry his sister because it ruins the gene pool.
quote:I'm sorry if you are insulted, but I'm pissed off about what has happened to this country.
Are you actually sorry for saying inflammatory, hurtful remarks, or are you just trying to avoid getting warned? Nothing's worse than empty sincerity.
And by the way, I'm pissed off at what's happening to this country too. People spouting hate and fear towards change instead of trying to understand.
quote:"What's happened to this country"... Are hordes of locusts consuming children out of their cribs because gays are getting married in Massachusettes? What could you possibly be thinking?
Didn't you get the memo from the Gay Agenda and the Progressives? Gay people are supposed to start eating babies ASAP.
quote:Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
None, because he isn't displeased?
quote:Pixiest, you don't know the arguments against homosexual marriage. I know this because you are projecting hate and idiocy on me and others who feel the way I do. I'm not a hateful person. But I know why you think I must be, because what other reason could there be for me to believe you should be denied what you feel is your right. Rather than demonizing your opponents, you should try to understand them. It probably won't make you change your mind, but it will help foster a more productive debate.
So, it's NOT hateful to forbid two people from marrying on religious grounds, or to say that their marriage of love would destroy the country, or imply their marriage is on par with a man marrying his fish?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this has been fun. Clean slate next time pH and Olivet, I hope. Try to figure out where you went wrong.
Pixiest, I bet you're a nice person and I really don't think homosexuals are bad people. Unfortunately, I can't simply write out the volumes of arguments and evidence from every angle that would explain the BIG PICTURE I have that you can't see. You can't do the same, and so I'm not going to be able to fully understand your side of it either. The best either of us can do is just be skeptical of our tendency to demonize and disparage the other side.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.
He said the first step towards treating women in marriage with respect and giving them a choice against not being forced to be raped by their husbands, a good thing, came after World War II, when bad things started happening.
What you just said called that decision a bad thing, since "everything got worse" since the war.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Kink of Men, Olivet, it is a straw man. I should just ask you both to go look up what a straw man argument is, but I'll just tell you what you are doing. I made an argument about moral decline since a certain time, and you point out bad things from back then that I can't argue against. Therefore, my whole argument is defeated.
Yes, it is. If you say "There has been moral decline since time X", and we say "But here's an example of moral improvement since time X", then at least we've shown that the decline has not been total. Now, you are certainly at liberty to argue that our improvements are less important than what you think are worsenings, and that therefore there's been a net decline. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable position. But to dismiss improvement as a straw man, when what we are arguing is precisely that the world is in fact better now, is just dishonest. It's not a straw man to present evidence in favour of your position!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.
He said the first step towards treating women in marriage with respect and giving them a choice against not being forced to be raped by their husbands, a good thing, came after World War II, when bad things started happening.
What you just said called that decision a bad thing, since "everything got worse" since the war.
He was using sarcasm say that he did NOT say that everything got worse.
"Civilization, as measured in the aggregate, was at it's highest at point X" does NOT mean that every single individual attribute of civilization was higher at point X.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Well, no, that's just a "dichotomy." A "false dichotomy" is when the situation is presented as if one of two options must be true and so the other false, when in fact, there is (at least) a third option that could hold and have both of the first two options be true (or both false).
---
Edited to add: I taught an Intoduction to Logic course for three years at the University of Illinois, so I'm up on my logical fallacies. Other things, maybe not so much. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that's it? I show you glaring errors in your argument and you come back with (pel)"I see so much more than you! Things that you are blind to! Woe! Woe! Woe!"(/pel)
And I've explained it to you. We're people. We deserve equal rights. Any compelling state interest you can come up with to show why we don't is based on scripture. And flawed scripture at that so you can't even contradict my argument.
I think I was right in the first place. You think them there gays are icky. You think lesbians are hot but if you admit it's ok for us to get hitched you'll expose the flaw in your argument against gay boys and you're not willing to do that cuz, "Dude! Gross!"
It's obvious you have put an ounce of thought into this.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: So that's it? I show you glaring errors in your argument and you come back with (pel)"I see so much more than you! Things that you are blind to! Woe! Woe! Woe!"(/pel)
That's exactly it. Don't you understand the woe?!!!
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Civilization, as measured in the aggregate, was at it's highest at point X" does NOT mean that every single individual attribute of civilization was higher at point X.
Darn... I read sincerity, it's sarcasm. I read sarcasm, it's sincerity. I'm not having much luck at this.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone can argue that civilization was not at its highest at point X or vice versa, but it would be at least polite for people not to suggest that other people are making things up when obviously they were not. It is also deliberatle inflammatory (and a bit stupid) to suggest than anyone should "go play with dolls."
I don't particularly care about the gay marriage topic anymore. To me it is pretty much moot. It is troubling, though, when a poster presenting xx/xy marriage as the last bastion of our civilization is so condescending to a poster because of her gender.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Hitochi, that long post of your started off very strong. I don't know if being homosexual is a choice. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it is not. But I've said this before: IF it is wrong, then it is the acting upon the impulse that is wrong. This is the hard part to express to people who just want to hate me because I disagree: If there is a massive sickness in this country that is a result of moral relativism, and acceptance of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality in all forms, this does not neccessarily imply that homosexuality is bad. It is a symptom. If I have a cold and so I have a runny nose, that does not mean that having a runny nose is bad. It's annoying, but it's not gonna kill me. I find homosexuals annoying, but I think it is the sickness of secularism and moral relativism that is bad.
Unfortuanely, the rest of you post is garbage. Eugenics and forced sterilization are not judeo-christian values. Neither is wife beating and rape. And the rest... forget it. You lost it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Well, no, that's just a "dichotomy." A "false dichotomy" is when the situation is presented as if one of two options must be true and so the other false, when in fact, there is (at least) a third option that could hold and have both of the first two options be true (or both false).
---
Edited to add: I taught an Intoduction to Logic course for three years at the University of Illinois, so I'm up on my logical fallacies. Other things, maybe not so much.
You're right. What was wrong was the fact that he made it out as though my argument was that the WWII was a Golden Age, then he showed evidence that it was not. Still a straw man. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, what he was doing was trying to make MY argument into a false dichotomy, and then shoot it down as such.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Wow, Hitochi, that long post of your started off very strong. I don't know if being homosexual is a choice. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it is not. But I've said this before: IF it is wrong, then it is the acting upon the impulse that is wrong. This is the hard part to express to people who just want to hate me because I disagree: If there is a massive sickness in this country that is a result of moral relativism, and acceptance of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality in all forms, this does not neccessarily imply that homosexuality is bad. It is a symptom. If I have a cold and so I have a runny nose, that does not mean that having a runny nose is bad. It's annoying, but it's not gonna kill me. I find homosexuals annoying, but I think it is the sickness of secularism and moral relativism that is bad.
Unfortuanely, the rest of you post is garbage. Eugenics and forced sterilization are not judeo-christian values. Neither is wife beating and rape. And the rest... forget it. You lost it.
It's Hitoshi, actually. I have yet to screw up your name, I'd ask you do the same for me.
Yes, if homosexuality is wrong, then acting upon it would be wrong. However, because not all religions or people agree, legislating that belief into practice is unfair to any who disagree. And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy. In fact, I find it funny you want us to fight against theocratic regimes but wish this country to become one as well.
I also find it amusing that, in the same post, you denounce people who "hate you" for disagreeing but then act disdainful towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, and actually, though sterilization isn't a Christian value per se, religion has been used to justify it and so many other things that should never have existed i the first place.
Oh, and your points are garbage. I figure, if you can say it, so can I. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You call us a runny nose and I'm demonizing you?
You call us "annoying" and I'm demonizing you?
You blame us for the fall of America and I'm demonizing you?
dee-dee-dee.
BTW, when did pH grow a doodle?
Quoted for truth. Don't you love how spreaders of Christ's love do so with amendments and hate? Not that you do it, Reshpeckobiggle, but I'm sure you'd love to hear the story of how a priest's gay son killed himself by throwing himself an overpass, and the priest said he was glad because his son was better off dead than being gay and against God. Can't you feel the love?
I also love how we're demonizing him by pointing out the snide comments he makes. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Had I said, "We don't hate you homosexuals, we just hate the filth and evil influence you spew.
Just because you think us Christians are brainwashed is not reason for you to corrupt our children."
Would that be okay?
No, but I've heard that and much worse from "Focus on the Family," which believes gays will destroy America and family values as we know it. Does that count?
Or, here's a proposition for you: if the tables were reversed, and we were pondering passing an amendment that banned marriages between Christians, would that be ok?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the same. Christians could deny christ and still get hitched. It's not like we can have one of us put on a fake moustache, claim to be named "Javier" (sorry, that's my favorite guy name) and get married.
We don't have a work around.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's Hitoshi, actually. I have yet to screw up your name, I'd ask you do the same for me.
Yes, if homosexuality is wrong, then acting upon it would be wrong. However, because not all religions or people agree, legislating that belief into practice is unfair to any who disagree. And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy. In fact, I find it funny you want us to fight against theocratic regimes but wish this country to become one as well.
I also find it amusing that, in the same post, you denounce people who "hate you" for disagreeing but then act disdainful towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, and actually, though sterilization isn't a Christian value per se, religion has been used to justify it and so many other things that should never have existed i the first place.
Oh, and your points are garbage. I figure, if you can say it, so can I.
Sorry about messing up your name. I didn't mean to, and I don't think I would make a big deal about it if you did it.
No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
And as for your points being garbage, that was a little harsh. I apologize. I should just say that I don't think they are good enough to spend much time addressing. That's how I feel, and everyone else is free to ignore things I say if they think what I say is stupid.
Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Had I said, "We don't hate you homosexuals, we just hate the filth and evil influence you spew.
Just because you think us Christians are brainwashed is not reason for you to corrupt our children."
Would that be okay?
No, but I've heard that and much worse from "Focus on the Family," which believes gays will destroy America and family values as we know it. Does that count?
Or, here's a proposition for you: if the tables were reversed, and we were pondering passing an amendment that banned marriages between Christians, would that be ok?
Not to mention that Christianity is DEFINITELY a choice. Though a predisposition to follow some of its tenets might be in ones nature.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
(I'd not quibble over it. *smile)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol. Do, and be honest with yourselves.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Not the same. Christians could deny christ and still get hitched. It's not like we can have one of us put on a fake moustache, claim to be named "Javier" (sorry, that's my favorite guy name) and get married.
We don't have a work around.
You're right. Well, crap. I can't think of a good example then...
quote:No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
How is this a false dichotomy? You explicitly said on page 10, "We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded. The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us." If you're not implying our government would be better off not being secular and should instead be based on the Bible, then what are you saying?
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Yes, the most prominent example of forced sterilization was Nazi Germany. One of the largest however was our own. From Wikipedia:
quote:Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation.
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
The greatest eugenics movement occured in America, and we used Christianity to justify it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol. Do, and be honest with yourselves.
You. Totally you. I don't think you deserve anything less than equal rights. Every time you say that we do, you're expressing bigotry.
Sorry, You can blame it on god if you like, but it doesn't hold up biblically.
And when you say we're responsible for the downfall of America you really cross the line.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol.
I'd tell you to do the same, but I doubt the results would be good. Tell me (when you get back, of course), would you accept an impartial arbitrator? Say, our esteemed moderator, Papa Janitor, who hasn't participated in this thread at all and thus has no axe to grind. If someone neutral were asked to do the same judgement, and found that you were the one spewing vitriol, would you change your posting style, or at least cease accusing people of demonising you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is a huge difference between what's wrong and what's legal, sometimes. It's usually a good thing that we do not equate the two. The last time people were prosecuted for interacial marriage was in 1967. Here are some quotes from the trial judge, taken from a link I'll supply at the end of this post:
"Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." *
Stuff like that is a big reason why creating or upholding laws based only on moral belief systems makes me nervous. I believe it was a federal court that decided such marriages should not be prosecuted, effectively killing such laws in states that still had them on the books.
Me, I figure it's a dead heat whether gay marriage will be the next thing to separate us from the rest of the first world. I hear the metric system is getting lonely.
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Oh, and given your love of pointing out fallacies, I'm sure you'll appreciate how Reductio ad Hitlerum applies. Just substitute "lack of religion" of X Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Only if you agree to spell "demonizing" with a z.
P.S. I'm not back.
Shall I take it from your flippancy, then, that you are afraid of what such an arbitration would show?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Well, there is a huge difference between what's wrong and what's legal, sometimes. It's usually a good thing that we do not equate the two. The last time people were prosecuted for interacial marriage was in 1967. Here are some quotes from the trial judge, taken from a link I'll supply at the end of this post:
"Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." *
Stuff like that is a big reason why creating or upholding laws based only on moral belief systems makes me nervous. I believe it was a federal court that decided such marriages should not be prosecuted, effectively killing such laws in states that still had them on the books.
Me, I figure it's a dead heat whether gay marriage will be the next thing to separate us from the rest of the first world. I hear the metric system is getting lonely.
I think this is an excellent post, Olivet. I knew you had it in you and I'm sorry I grouped you in with pH.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow.. I read the first part of that article.. it blows my mind that 42% of americans were against interracial marriage in 1998.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
