Jinto

Wow. I'd comment on dk's illogic, but I'm too busy trying to prevent myself from laughing and puking simultaneously (it's a very unpleasant experience).

keyser_soze

Please do provide some numbers to back this up(hint, ex-social worker here, going to find it easy to refute your numbers so they better be damned good). I've noticed that you have yet to back up ANYTHING in the 20 or so odd pages, and you only respond to the arguments you think you can have a shot at "muddying" up. Why is it you can ignore all of the evidence that contradicts your obviously biased and poorly thought out conclusions? How can you be so dense, but yet are able to hook up to the internet and type in semi-coherent sentences? You remind me of an old neighbor(his particular prejudice was black people though), he was semi-bright, and could be mistaken for thoughtful. But the amount of time and energy he placed into "finding" supporting evidence, while ignoring the masses of evidence to the contrary(he believed that having black people in the population was a danger to his livelihood and his family...but not any other minority btw, just black folks...explain who how he could be prejudiced to one and not the other with that mindset and I'll give you a nickel) was astounding. But he was a bigot, just as you are, and that is how bigots think. I believe in personal achievement, in striving to accomplish. But it seems the population of the world is constantly growing into a "mandated directorship"...hell in a handbasket if you will. Everyone wants THEIR personal brand of bigotry to be the one followed, but they don't want themselves to be lumped in with any other breed of bigot. You people need help.

dk

Everybody needs help to achieve anything of substance. I don't think you're even arguing with me. The nuclear family doesn't favor one race over another, rather thrives on interracial unions ordered by vows of fidelity, commitment and love for the sake and hope of children. I really don't understand where such misdirected animosity comes from or leads. I appear to be guilty of muddying the waters with clarity.

Jinto

Wow. The old "They disagree with me, therefore I must be right" fallacy. That couldn't have been predicted.

dk

Jinto I've been arguing the merits of the nuclear family for twenty pages now. keyser_soze, an x social worker, in his first breath claims to easily refute the numbers I've put up, then in the next breath claims I haven't put up any numbers. Let me be clear, I can't ignore nothing and keyser_soze presented nothing in the way of evidence to support his allegatons. What does that mean all fallacous chit chat aside?

Jinto

What it means is that you misread the post. He asks you to provide some evidence of your assertation, admonishes you against providing weak evidence (a thing that many of us are tired of), and then provides an extended commentary on your pattern of thinking. He does not "in his first breath claims to easily refute the numbers I've put up, then in the next breath claims I haven't put up any numbers." In fact, the first half of that sentence directly contradicts the tense of his post. I don't understand what it is with you - you have this annoying habit of not answering the question (I refer you to your response to FOIL, where FOIL repeatedly asks you about your own beliefs about what should be the guiding principles behind family court rulings and you respond with commentary on what actually happened, without revealing your alternative). It's something that I've seen a lot, and frankly, one of the reasons why I stopped debating you.

What I object to specifically in your post here, is your implication (which you have repeated on numerous occasions) that because we are frustrated with your posts that it must be because they have merit. This is fallacious, and quite frankly insulting, as it implies that we should react emotionlessly to any amount of bullshit, no matter how annoying or ill-contrived, unless it has merit, and that being reasonably frustrated at someone who doesn't respond to logic constitutes a regognition of the correctness of their argument, which is baloney.

By the way, that would explain why you never really seem to really grasp the issue: we've been debating whether or not gay marriage ought to be made legal for the last 22 pages. Apparently, you've been debating something completely different. This would explain why there has been so little effective comunication here.

Dr Rick

That is not true; you've been justifying your hatred of gays, single mothers, liberals, and whatever other groups you wish to oppress by hiding behind your clarian-call that they all "threaten the nuclear family." You make this claim without evidentiary support, and when challenged , shift the argument to strawman fallacies such as the merits of the nuclear family and rants against such wide-ranging topics as divorce and liberalism:

Quote:

Gays suffer from their own culture at the hands of gay leaders. Gay leaders yell, “Save us, we love you, we need you to be like us, so we can stick it up your ass”. The Institutionalization of anal sex won’t help gay people, it will only sever the bonds that hold together the nuclear family...To evaluate the level of the dysfunctional the s-family brings to the debate we must look back to the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and unreliable preventative birth control....the Rule of Law evolved assuming the nuclear family. This really doesn’t address your questions, it simply frames modern liberalism so prominent in the social sciences in the broader context of cynicism. ...Modern democracies for the last 50 years have adopted the propositional attitude that technology supplants morality to perfect human nature...SSM will break the chain between mother and child leaving the government to speak in loco parentis for the child...SSM fundamentally changes the relationship between government and individuals by severing the bonds that hold the nuclear family...I appear to be guilty of muddying the waters with clarity.

Your fallacious arguments have all the clarity of a cesspool. What's obvious is that you are rationalizing hate/fear by claiming that those that aren't like you are a threat to you and your lifestyle. Others have followed your obsfucation in an honest attempt to understand your prejudice only to become frustrated with your evasiveness and shifting strawmen. Through this thread and your mindless preaching you have provided no good evidence that oppressing gays, other minorities, women, and single mothers elevates the two-parent family or society at large. You cite statistics and temporal relations about at-risk children from single parent families and civil rights, but provide no evidence that gays or civil rights have anything to do with this, nor have you provided any evidence that forcing couples to remain in dysfunctional marriages would be any better for children. The merits of the "nuclear family" are not in any way a justification for oppressing those who cannot or will not be part of one.

In the absence of evidence, your argument against all that you despise is nothing but unmitigated prejudice and hate.

Rick

keyser_soze

First, I did not claim to first refute your numbers. I said PUT THEM UP. Then I would refute them, due...most likely, to the fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Now, stop putting up the herrings and straw men, and try to do some damn research for once. You've posted nothing but hot air and circular reasoning for 20 pages. I think everyone is getting annoyed with you, not just me.

dk

dk: I don’t hate gays, there are gays I know and love.
dk: Using marriage as a cover story for anal sex only buries the problem. Gay leaders sympathized AIDs victims into a political coo, but HIV+ and other MDR microbes don’t play politics. The privacy rights gay leaders parlayed into a equal rights only prevent immunologists from tracking, isolating and eliminating the threats MDR microbes pose to civilization. Gay leaders followed the trail of tears blazed by Planned Parenthood’s victims, Civil Right’s victims and Feminist’s victims. They used the Rule of Law as a stick to whoop the nuclear family as the primal cause of overpopulation, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, violence, poverty and hatred. Every problem hacked off the nuclear family falls to the ground growing into two new problems, each worse than the former. If my argument look like a cesspool its because that’s what we’ve become, apart from the nuclear family.

Dr Rick: Others have followed your obfuscation in an honest attempt to understand your prejudice only to become frustrated with your evasiveness and shifting Strawman.
dk: You many not believe it, but I appreciate the effort.

Dr Rick: Through this thread and your mindless preaching you have provided no good evidence that oppressing gays, other minorities, women, and single mothers elevates the two-parent family or society at large.
dk: You don’t get it, a free country can’t exist without the autonomous nuclear family. Government has no business engineering family or family values. It was the government (courts) that destroyed the black family with social engineering, it was the government (courts) that chains single mothers at the expense of children. It was the government (courts) that prevents epidemiologists from fighting contagious diseases like AIDs. Nations and Civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems with life affirming solutions, not socializing politically correct attitudes.

Dr Rick: You cite statistics and temporal relations about at-risk children from single parent families and civil rights, but provide no evidence that gays or civil rights have anything to do with this, nor have you provided any evidence that forcing couples to remain in dysfunctional marriages would be any better for children. The merits of the "nuclear family" are not in any way a justification for oppressing those who cannot or will not be part of one.
dk: To the contrary, I demonstrated what happens when politics collide with science. Anyone that challenges the status quo becomes the enemy, and reform becomes an unacceptable problem statement.

keyser_soze

Damn, I should have read everyone else's response to you. Nevermind, you've already been told. You can ignore my post as they already said it all, and more. Get a clue.:banghead: