Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Godot · 06-15-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Most of these creeps have no desire to control themselves. They've lost their humanity. Death by slow torture is too good for the bastards.

If they aren't worthy of contempt, who is?

If you'll recall, waaaaay back on page 6 when you never bothered to respond directly to any of my points (unless you think misdirection a valid explanatory tactic), I said:

Quote:

You're perfectly free to spout off whatever line of bullshit you feel like, but you will get called on it. The game is something like put up or shut up. Namely, that if you refuse to provide substantiating evidence for your claim, you can be dismissed as a crank. Or even as a troll.

I'm doing so right now. These statments of yours are so far out of whack with reality, I'm surprised you do not suffer from scoliosis to view them as reasonable. Now put up or shut up. If these are mere assertions form your own narrow-minded bigotry, I believe you need to crawl back under your bridge.

Amen-Moses · 06-15-2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
No, because their obedience to the 10C's was mechanical and rigid, a means of justifying the sense of superiority they had over others.

Well they were Jewish.

Amen-Moses

Nowhere357 · 06-15-2003, 06:19 AM

Good for Cananda. Who could possibly object, other than the morally stunted (xian fundamentalists, for example)?

yguy · 06-15-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godot
If these are mere assertions form your own narrow-minded bigotry, I believe you need to crawl back under your bridge.

Click on my profile.

Click "add yguy to your ignore list".

You're happy, I'm happy. Right? If that doesn't cut it for you, you can petition the admins to get me banned.

Those appear to be your options, since your juvenile attempts at character assassination leave me entirely untroubled, rest assured.

scigirl · 06-15-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godot
I'm surprised you do not suffer from scoliosis

Well you really would need to see an xray to make that diagnosis, wouldn't you? I am guessing, from the posts here, that he perhaps suffers from a different sort of neural tube defect, namely anencephaly.

scigirl

yguy · 06-15-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
Well you really would need to see an xray to make that diagnosis, wouldn't you? I am guessing, from the posts here, that he perhaps suffers from a different sort of neural tube defect, namely anencephaly.

scigirl

So what's the term for the condition that causes people to thinly veil their grade school level insults by embedding them in medical jargon?

NHGH · 06-15-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Because like heteros who get married for the wrong reasons, homosexuals begin the "adventure" with an act of rebellion against common sense.

In a now-familiar pattern, we have here a claim which is a) dubious (at best) in its own right and b) fails to support the intended conclusion (it doesn't follow from the fact that one "rebel[s] against common sense" that one cannot "not ... indulge that selfishness [which is supposedly inherent in all marriages] and thus overcome it").

Quote:

We're not talking about making something legal which was once illegal.

Really? Gay marriage isn't illegal right now?

Quote:

We're talking about making a law granting respect to the wishes of a certain segment of society.

Only in the sense that we already "grant respect to the wishes", with respect to marriage, of everyone else in society. We're just suggesting that gays not be singled out and denied the right to marry.

Quote:

Again, what we deny religious groups through the first amendment, we would be granting homoseuxals. The question then becomes why we shouldn't do the same for religion through a Constitutional amendment.

Pardon? The First Amendment denies religious groups the right to get married?

Quote:

It wasn't guessing. It's called foresight - even though I'm sure your ego bristles at the idea that right wingers could see something you can't or won't.

Sorry, could you be a little more explicit here? What exactly is the difference between "guessing" and "foresight"? I mean, if you know of some technique for reliably predicting the future without recourse to evidence or coherent argument, you really should share it with the rest of us.

Quote:

We're not permitting it, we are making a special provision in the law to accomodate it.

Again, only in the sense that we already have "a special provision in the law" to permit heterosexual marriage.

...

Quote:

The legality of advocacy of noxious views of any kind is a natural consequence of the first amendment - no special provision there.

Right, because the First Amendment doesn't cherry-pick which views should or should not be legally expressable--which is as it should be. Similarly, the laws regarding marriage should not pick and choose which marriages should be legally permitted--at least not without more compelling justification than the host of contentious claims and non-sequiturs you've offered up to this point.

NHGH · 06-15-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You missed the point. Seligman didn't claim his experience was not negative, he claimed it was positive. You can't judge Seligman's remarks by the context of the paper, because they were obviously put there to lend credence to the idea that pedophilia is less hideous than most people think.

We could go on and on about this subject ad nauseam, but I have no further comment here unless you can offer some convincing reason to think that it is relevant to the subject of gay marriage.

Quote:

Technically that is correct, of course. The obvious point is that the air of authority of any pronouncement from the APA conferred a perception of normalcy to homosexuality in the public eye. To say they had nothing to do with the legitimizing of homosexuality is like saying the Maxim Gorky - the writer who, having witnessed first hand the horror of Stalinist death camps, kept his mouth shut about it - had nothing to do with the perpetuation of that regime.

Again, getting sort of far afield here, but...

The only way I can see that any pronouncement from the APA could have anything like the effect you ascribe to it, is that there was never any more coherent objection to homosexuality in the first place, than a vague sense that it was somehow "sick". The APA's decision was arguably a catalyst for public discussion of the issue, but I don't see how the "air of authority" of the APA's pronouncements could have "conferred
a perception of normalcy to homosexuality" in the face of any reasonably strong counterargument.

It might be illuminating to consider the example I previously gave: would a decision by the APA to remove kleptomania from the DSM have the effect of "confer[ring] a perception of normalcy" to theft? Probably not, since there are rational objections to theft other than the notion that it is somehow "sick".

Quote:

That's why I only posted the link because you asked for it. As I said, I couldn't confirm it with a mainstream source.

Fair enough.

Koiyotnik · 06-15-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Hey - I grew up with a single, psychologically abusive mom. Never been in jail. Ted Bundy, to hear him tell it, had good parents. From this we might conclude that parenting from a single, abusive parent is as good as that from traditional, non-abusive parents, by your reasoning.

The issue here wasn't whether or not the child would be normal, but whether they could learn about marriages coming from a non-traditional background.

You said:

Quote:

Look: children learn how marriages work by observing their parents. How on earth can children raised in a homosexual union learn how a traditional marriage works?

To which I rebutted that I and others did not grow up in a traditional marriage, and yet still were able to understand the workings of such a thing.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about the parenting techniques, did I?
I also did not mention anything about abusive parents, so I don't see where you could deduce my reasoning from what I've posted. Some might call that a strawman--I'll leave it open to interpretation.

tronvillain · 06-15-2003, 02:11 PM

yguy:

Quote:

Look: children learn how marriages work by observing their parents. How on earth can children raised in a homosexual union learn how a traditional marriage works?

What exactly would they be missing? All of the major elements would hopefully be there: love, cooperation, respect, affection, parenting, and so on. All that is missing is a male on female sex, and I would hope children would see that in a traditional marriage anyway. Really, what would be missing?

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

06-15-2003, 06:19 AM	#203
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	Good for Cananda. Who could possibly object, other than the morally stunted (xian fundamentalists, for example)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.