Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thapthim · 06-29-2003, 10:48 AM

A troll is...

Quote:

"An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

source dictionary.com taken on June 29, 2003

However, asides from spitting out definitions, I would just like to see yguy display some evidence to his statements. Cause right now it is an opinion, not a fact.

winstonjen · 06-29-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
In the vast majority of those cases, there is no prior intent to deprive a child of a gender role model. What are we gonna do, make it illegal for one parent to die?

Regardless of intent, the result is the same. What are you gonna do - force them to remarry?

Quote:

Don't be dense. The ability to cook has nothing to do with gender. The ability to be a father or a mother does.

I'm not being dense. Fathers can only be male, mothers female, but the roles they play, such as nurturing, education, etc. are NOT gender specific.

yguy · 06-29-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Regardless of intent, the result is the same. What are you gonna do - force them to remarry?

What do you think, Sherlock?

Quote:

I'm not being dense. Fathers can only be male, mothers female, but the roles they play, such as nurturing, education, etc. are NOT gender specific.

Then other than the inability to be sperm donors, it appears that women are perfectly capable of being fathers, and vice versa. Right?

Bree · 06-29-2003, 06:19 PM

yguy, if you care so much, why don't you move to a country where the legalisation of homosexual marriage won't ever happen?

winstonjen · 06-29-2003, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
What do you think, Sherlock?

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

Quote:

Then other than the inability to be sperm donors, it appears that women are perfectly capable of being fathers, and vice versa. Right?

Correct. The role of mothering is not gender-specific.

yguy · 06-29-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

Originally posted by yguy
What do you think, Sherlock?

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

That would certainly be a convenient option for one so obviously determined to misconstrue.

Quote:

Then other than the inability to be sperm donors, it appears that women are perfectly capable of being fathers, and vice versa. Right?

Correct. The role of mothering is not gender-specific.

"O brave new world, that has such people in it."

winstonjen · 06-29-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
That would certainly be a convenient option for one so obviously determined to misconstrue.

If you're so afraid of your comments being misconstrued, why don't you explain it?

Quote:

"O brave new world, that has such people in it."

And your point with this quote is?

yguy · 06-29-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
If you're so afraid of your comments being misconstrued, why don't you explain it?

I'm not afraid of it. As common a tactic as it is, I rather expect it. However I'm not dumb enough to explain to people like yourself who obviously aren't interested in anything beyond argument by distortion.

Quote:

And your point with this quote is?

If you've read Huxley's famous anti-utopian novel, you know. If you have and you don't, you likely never will.

winstonjen · 06-29-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not afraid of it. As common a tactic as it is, I rather expect it. However I'm not dumb enough to explain to people like yourself who obviously aren't interested in anything beyond argument by distortion.

And yet you distort our position by claiming that we're not interested. We are interested. Remember, refusal to respond is an admission of defeat.

Quote:

If you've read Huxley's famous anti-utopian novel, you know. If you have and you don't, you likely never will.

And the point of this is? Aren't you the one claiming that your morals are part of a 'perfect society'?

yguy · 06-29-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
We are interested.

"We" may be interested, but YOU are not.

Quote:

Remember, refusal to respond is an admission of defeat.

Your proclivity for casting interpretations favorable to your position on an opponent's statements also serves you well, I suppose, in the case of your opponent's silence. Go for it, dude.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2003, 06:19 PM	#284
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	yguy, if you care so much, why don't you move to a country where the legalisation of homosexual marriage won't ever happen?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.