100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Step up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bad faith. There are reasons not my own that have already been given that have not yet been properly addressed. Do I really need to explain the difference between calling something "unhealthy", and a justified objection based upon scientific fact? My teenagers know the difference. your words: Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination.
Are you attempting to claim that unnecessary risks constitute sufficient ground to justify dening the privelege of marriage?
So, it is not reasonable to deny the privelege of marriage to gays on account that some have AIDS and some spread hiv through unprotected sex.
If the argument is that not promoting gay lifestyle will stop the transmission of HIV, it is wrong on all accounts. It is equally wrong to assume that only gays take risks in their sexual practices. We could hypothetically remove all gays from society, and AIDS would still spread as long as people with HIV were having unprotected sex.
Yet you will descriminate against incest for a "potential" risk of birth defects. Why punish someone for something that has not happened? There are birth control devices these days. Birth defects happen in hetero marriages too, I suppose you want to deny them their rights too. Sexual intercourse does not equal babies, and marriage doesn't equal sexual intercourse, so your #2 fails miserably. But I'm sure you'll spew some sort of garbage like this: Calling something "unhealthy" is an unjustifed reason. Apparently you cannot differentiate between that and the verifiable and repeatable scientific wealth of data that does not equate to calling something "unhealthy", but rather equates to objective empirical evidence. Lacking the ability to recognize this distinction indicates poor judgment.
You've already "dismissed" studies opposing gay marriage using nothing except your own opinion. You still think you have an objective opinion? Really, I bet your teenagers know the difference. Now, either put forth your own objections or "step off", because you don't impress me with your "reason", nor you demonstration of logical thinking. You jumped into this discussion for personal reasons, whatever "perceived" reason that may be is unjustified. You cannot cry about me getting personal, I've kept my emotions out of this. So take all of your lame inuendos, grow a pair, and admit that you're biased, hypocritical and bigoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you also do not understand the difference between few other things here...
1. Opinion based upon objective evidence and objective evidence itself. 2. Being biased for equal rights and being biased against a group 3. Improper and proper application of scientific data 4. An objection and an argument 5. An opinion and an argument 6. A justified opinion and an unjustifed opinion 7. Putting forth a list of societies reasons and endorsing those 8. Your imagination and my thoughts 9. Dismissing studies and rejected them due to known prejudice Look Pan, this conversation has consisted almost entirely of me repeatedly correcting your misconceptions and it looks to continue unless you seriously think about the above things. It won't hurt, I promise. The claims of mine that you quoted at the top of the last response do not contradict one another at all. Knowing that requires understanding the things listed here. Being honest and forthright in a discussion requires addressing rejoinders that elucidate the meaning of the subject matter at hand. Entering into a discussion entails making a comittment to that discussion. Not addressing the concerns which are expressed in opposition, regardless of how much they contradict your own, on a repeated basis is arguing in bad faith and will stunt intellectual growth. I'm not here to impress nor belittle you Pan. I address what you write, will continue to address what you write and expect the same in return. Now, can we move forward yet? Are we on the same page? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing regarding this in particular...
Pan claims:
But I'm sure you'll spew some sort of garbage like this: Calling something "unhealthy" is an unjustifed reason. Apparently you cannot differentiate between that and the verifiable and repeatable scientific wealth of data that does not equate to calling something "unhealthy", but rather equates to objective empirical evidence. Lacking the ability to recognize this distinction indicates poor judgment. If you really think that that is garbage, the it shows that you do not agree with the distinction between calling something "unhealthy" and having a wealth of scientific data that shows not 'possible' increased health risks, but garaunteed ones. Again those are the reasons that society maintains. I merely offered those up, I have not endorsed those. According to your own position though, you must reconcile the difference between society's reasons and your own position which honors society's reasons. Personally, I am undecided upon those reasons. I do reject the notion of incestual marriage based upon another factor. I have refrained from putting that out there until all of these other things are came to terms with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and one other thing...
whatever "perceived" reason that may be is unjustified.
It is impossible for a person to know that an obviously unknown but nonetheless present reason is unjustified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing regarding this in particular... Pan claims:
But I'm sure you'll spew some sort of garbage like this: Calling something "unhealthy" is an unjustifed reason. Apparently you cannot differentiate between that and the verifiable and repeatable scientific wealth of data that does not equate to calling something "unhealthy", but rather equates to objective empirical evidence. Lacking the ability to recognize this distinction indicates poor judgment. If you really think that that is garbage, the it shows that you do not agree with the distinction between calling something "unhealthy" and having a wealth of scientific data that shows not 'possible' increased health risks, but garaunteed ones. Again those are the reasons that society maintains. I merely offered those up, I have not endorsed those. According to your own position though, you must reconcile the difference between society's reasons and your own position which honors society's reasons. Personally, I am undecided upon those reasons. I do reject the notion of incestual marriage based upon another factor. I have refrained from putting that out there until all of these other things are came to terms with. I called it "garbage" because of your use of the term "objective empirical evidence". As long as you assert that you have and objective oppinion, that you can spot bias or that you know better than society, there's nothing left to discuss. "Now, either put forth your own objections or "step off", because you don't impress me with your "reason", nor you demonstration of logical thinking." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 01/12/11 11:55 PM
|
|
and one other thing... whatever "perceived" reason that may be is unjustified.
It is impossible for a person to know that an obviously unknown but nonetheless present reason is unjustified. LOL, I actually know what the reason is... Just let it go..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as you assert that you have and objective oppinion, that you can spot bias or that you know better than society, there's nothing left to discuss.
See #1 in the previous list of things you should pay attention to. I have never asserted that I have an objective opinion. See #8 in the previous list of things you should pay attention to. Are you really denying that bias can be perceived? #3. Who made the claim that I can know better than society? see #8 again. We on the same page yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, I actually know what the reason is...
Just let it go..... #8 again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Now, either put forth your own objections or ...
Why throw pearls to swine? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as you assert that you have and objective oppinion, that you can spot bias or that you know better than society, there's nothing left to discuss.
See #1 in the previous list of things you should pay attention to. I have never asserted that I have an objective opinion. creative said: "It is not just a matter of 'subjective' opinion. It is a matter of intelligent, respectful deliberation of what the facts of the matter are in addition to how those facts are being applied." Who made the claim that I can know better than society?
creative said: "The red entails both, the purple and the blue, unless society is mistaken in the application of the available evidence and/or relevent facts. Such a mistake does not satisfy the purple portion(sufficient reason), the assessment of which requires the identification and demonstration of the mistake in order to show why/how such a denial is/has been unjustified." Now, I suggest you look at your #8... And yes, when it comes to you, you cannot percieve your own bias, let alone another's... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to your own position, you must reconcile the difference between society's reasons and your own position which openly claims to honor society's reasons, but clearly contradicts them simultaneously.
How would one then reconcile that with the recent distasteful expression that you gave me? Remember, as long as 'I thought that I knew better than society'??? How then, do you expect to be able to justify your disagreement with societal standards regarding incest without claiming to know better than society? There is some hypocrisy here, that much is clearly true. We on the same page yet? By the way, that was an objection, just so ya know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to your own position, you must reconcile the difference between society's reasons and your own position which openly claims to honor society's reasons, but clearly contradicts them simultaneously. How would one then reconcile that with the recent distasteful expression that you gave me? Remember, as long as 'I thought that I knew better than society'??? How then, do you expect to be able to justify your disagreement with societal standards regarding incest without claiming to know better than society? There is some hypocrisy here, that much is clearly true. We on the same page yet? By the way, that was an objection, just so ya know. LOL!!! One was fact. (my position that I agree with society) The other was hypothetical. (to prove your hypocrisy) Just let it go.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 01/13/11 12:27 AM
|
|
This...
I have never asserted that I have an objective opinion.
...and this... It is not just a matter of 'subjective' opinion. It is a matter of intelligent, respectful deliberation of what the facts of the matter are in addition to how those facts are being applied.
...do not conflict in any way shape or form. Neither do this... Who made the claim that I can know better than society?
...and this... The red entails both, the purple and the blue, unless society is mistaken in the application of the available evidence and/or relevent facts. Such a mistake does not satisfy the purple portion(sufficient reason), the assessment of which requires the identification and demonstration of the mistake in order to show why/how such a denial is/has been unjustified.
American society has been known to have been mistaken throughout history. Knowing that does not equate to a claim that I know better than society. See #8 again. If you are trying to deny these known historical mistakes, then I'll need to add another # denoting the difference between known history and your imagination. Are we there yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just let it go....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One was fact. (my position that I agree with society)
The other was hypothetical. (to prove your hypocrisy) Shall I add yet another number to denote the difference between deliberate deception and a hypothetical? So let me get this straight... You blatantly lie about the position you hold, when called on it change your claim and attempt to say that it was a hypothetical, and somehow that proves my hypocrisy? Gotcha. Sorry, but that is arguing in bad faith. We there yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let what go Pan?
The fact that you're being rightfully called out to defend every piece of sheeeeeought that your putting forth? As soon as you start stringing together an intelligible argument which does not have the intent of belittling another, I'll let it go, because you will have. We on the same page yet, Pan? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let what go Pan? The fact that you're being rightfully called out to defend every piece of sheeeeeought that your putting forth? As soon as you start stringing together an intelligible argument which does not have the intent of belittling another, I'll let it go, because you will have. We on the same page yet, Pan? Just let it go... I still can't fix your hypocrisy... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you fix your own.
#9. Reality and your imagination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I should not expect any sense to be made by one who does not have that capability.
Chalk it up to experience. Di, you were wrong. |
|
|
|
|
