| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2008 02:57:24 PM · #626 |
| Right, Fox News, in an article that is all about old, ridiculous sex laws. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:00:13 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh. |
By the way, Louis, how are the orangutan bars in Ontario?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:01:09 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Edit: same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for years, in the Netherlands even longer, and I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh. |
This sounds alot like how the arguments against handgun ownership don't cause more "wild west" deaths either - even though that is the proclaimation of the opponents. Glad to know you can easily recognize false arguments. You must be a supporter of right to carry laws in Canada as so many states here in the US have proven the myth of concealed carry risk (namely wild west shoot outs) to be false.
I seem to recall you supporting more restrictions, with your support for the false and misleading myths. I think I found a similar offense. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:12:19 PM · #629 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Edit: same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for years, in the Netherlands even longer, and I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh. |
This sounds alot like how the arguments against handgun ownership don't cause more "wild west" deaths either - even though that is the proclaimation of the opponents. Glad to know you can easily recognize false arguments. You must be a supporter of right to carry laws in Canada as so many states here in the US have proven the myth of concealed carry risk (namely wild west shoot outs) to be false.
I seem to recall you supporting more restrictions, with your support for the false and misleading myths. I think I found a similar offense. |
Huh?
Let me get this straight. You think that refuting the comparison between bestiality and homosexuality as a means to argue against same-sex marriage is identical to saying that handgun ownership does not cause something you've called "wild west deaths"?
You are suggesting that because I find your comparison between homosexuality and bestiality offensive, particularly because you are shamelessly trying to coopt the discussion to turn it into a personalized rant against same-sex marriage, I should be in favour of handgun ownership?
What kind of dizzying circuitous reasoning is required to travel between these particular points I wonder? |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:13:14 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh. |
By the way, Louis, how are the orangutan bars in Ontario? |
Not as good as the llama lounges. Those are wild. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:15:21 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by citymars:
By the way, Louis, how are the orangutan bars in Ontario? |
Not as good as the llama lounges. Those are wild. |
Assuming you don't have a preference for red hair. ;-P |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:38:25 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth."
Here is a great resource. |
I especially liked this reply to your link...
There were a number of "mights", "mays", "coulds", and other similar words that were a far cry from the definitive proof you so commonly refere to as evidence. |
Let me see if I can explain this in simple enough words.
The article explains why evolution is fact.
One argument used by the ill-educated and the religious fundamentalists is that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuality is fundamentally inconsistent with the evolution, and therefore evolution is wrong.
In fact, there are lots of possible reasons for the existence of homosexuality. The article explains some of them. So it is not accurate to say that the existence of homosexuality means that homosexuality is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution, and the arguments of the ill-educated and religious fundamentalists are wrong.
We do not need to know the definitive cause for homosexuality in order to understand that evolution is fact.
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 15:39:19.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:41:50 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by citymars:
By the way, Louis, how are the orangutan bars in Ontario? |
Not as good as the llama lounges. Those are wild. |
Assuming you don't have a preference for red hair. ;-P |
Sshhh... somebody's listening....
[thumb]670627[/thumb] |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:51:42 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth."
Here is a great resource. |
I especially liked this reply to your link...
There were a number of "mights", "mays", "coulds", and other similar words that were a far cry from the definitive proof you so commonly refere to as evidence. |
Let me see if I can explain this in simple enough words.
The article explains why evolution is fact.
One argument used by the ill-educated and the religious fundamentalists is that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuality is fundamentally inconsistent with the evolution, and therefore evolution is wrong.
In fact, there are lots of possible reasons for the existence of homosexuality. The article explains some of them. So it is not accurate to say that the existence of homosexuality means that homosexuality is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution, and the arguments of the ill-educated and religious fundamentalists are wrong.
We do not need to know the definitive cause for homosexuality in order to understand that evolution is fact. |
Actually that explaination is simple enough for me. Where my points were intended, was your conclusion "We do not need to know the definitive cause for homosexuality in order to understand that evolution is fact." has a different set of requirements than what you and many posters here use to assess nearly any religious posting. Your standards are different. You may or may not agree, but that does not change the facts that the high scientific standards you hold a religious claim to, are lacking in some of the scientific conclusions. Your link posed that evolution was factual and as evidence of its factualness had a series of myths which were linked. I opened just one of those and was met with a multitude of mights, coulds, and mays, all which you have claimed previously did not meet the burden of scientific proof - yet now it does.
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 03:55:55 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point. |
Only due to the staggering lack of a coherent argument, there is no point. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:05:16 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. I was saving that tidbit until another time when the arguments were turning toward legalizing gay marriage and then I was giong to ask where does it stop. |
Your grasp of intolerant behaviour is quite masterful.
Luckily you believe in a particular interpretation of one religion that says that you can safely ignore god's laws. Let's hope that you chose the right interpretation and the right prophet - half the world's christians and the other two major Abrahamic religions would hold you accountable for your intolerant behaviour.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:06:32 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point. |
Only due to the staggering lack of a coherent argument, there is no point. |
1. I was truly amazed to see you agree with anything I posted - even with caveats.
2. I made a post regarding beastiality. You made a claim that it was offensive and a false argument. I posted examples of from you of both offensive and false arguments with nearly identical evidence as your post -
3. My argument is incoherent yet yours is the epitomy of reason.
Isn't flying here. You lost ground (with me) when the Mythra argument fell through. You have always posted with such assuredness and conviction, I was starting to think maybe you were a God. But alas it isn't so - just human. Not only are you human and capable of error, but you can even accuse me of a false argument using the exact tactics you employ - yet your arguments are sound. Nope. Your wrong. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:12:25 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. I was saving that tidbit until another time when the arguments were turning toward legalizing gay marriage and then I was giong to ask where does it stop. |
Your grasp of intolerant behaviour is quite masterful.
Luckily you believe in a particular interpretation of one religion that says that you can safely ignore god's laws. Let's hope that you chose the right interpretation and the right prophet - half the world's christians and the other two major Abrahamic religions would hold you accountable for your intolerant behaviour. |
The only thing I would caution you on, is (if you ever decide it is worth the time) to discern my arguments apart from my positions. Just as you can advocate a position in the courtroom or boardroom and not have it be your own personal position - it might not even be the truth - just your advocated postion, do not rest too mightily that any particular argument is mine. Sometimes (in fact many times) I don't know what my personal position is nor even if I care, but a post will assume one.
As an example, your quote of my post regarding my find on Washington State law did not identify any personal position of mine. Only a possible position for advocacy. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:26:57 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...you can even accuse me of a false argument using the exact tactics you employ - yet your arguments are sound. Nope. Your wrong. |
I'm sure you think your arguments are equivalent, but they're a mishmash of fallacy and ignorance. Lifelong indoctrination is a powerful thing.
BTW- "Your wrong" is incredibly ironic. It's "You're." |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:46:55 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point. |
Only due to the staggering lack of a coherent argument, there is no point. |
1. I was truly amazed to see you agree with anything I posted - even with caveats.
2. I made a post regarding beastiality. You made a claim that it was offensive and a false argument. I posted examples of from you of both offensive and false arguments with nearly identical evidence as your post -
3. My argument is incoherent yet yours is the epitomy of reason.
Isn't flying here. You lost ground (with me) when the Mythra argument fell through. You have always posted with such assuredness and conviction, I was starting to think maybe you were a God. But alas it isn't so - just human. Not only are you human and capable of error, but you can even accuse me of a false argument using the exact tactics you employ - yet your arguments are sound. Nope. Your wrong. |
Assuming you mean "you're", show me how.
PS: I refute that my "Mithra" analogy fell through. Perhaps you fell prey to the same error that DrAchoo did, that is, refusing to believe facts that are inconvenient, and requiring that I do what would be tantamount to scholarly research using original sources (preferrably on papyrus), while ignoring the embarassing detail, only in this case, that scholars have already done that work.
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 16:53:04. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:50:16 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh. |
By the way, Louis, how are the orangutan bars in Ontario? |
Not as good as the llama lounges. Those are wild. |
The problem with Llama Lounges is that there is spit everyware, very slippery:) |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 04:53:24 PM · #642 |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 07:06:28 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Actually that explaination is simple enough for me. Where my points were intended, was your conclusion "We do not need to know the definitive cause for homosexuality in order to understand that evolution is fact." has a different set of requirements than what you and many posters here use to assess nearly any religious posting. Your standards are different. You may or may not agree, but that does not change the facts that the high scientific standards you hold a religious claim to, are lacking in some of the scientific conclusions. Your link posed that evolution was factual and as evidence of its factualness had a series of myths which were linked. I opened just one of those and was met with a multitude of mights, coulds, and mays, all which you have claimed previously did not meet the burden of scientific proof - yet now it does.
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point. |
I'm not quite sure where I can go with this.
I don't think that anyone on these threads has ever said that science can prove why homosexuality occurs. People have said that there are a number of plausible reasons for which there is evidence (though the interpretation of some of this evidence is disputed - hardly warranting the description of "myth") - the only people who claim to know for certain are those making a religiously fundamental argument.
When I ask some kind of evidence for god, we do not ask for indisputable proof. On the one side of the debate we have a thousand billion or so items of evidence all consistent with evolution. On the other hand there is precisely zero evidence for god. I'm not asking for the same weight of evidence as exists for evolution, just enough to make it a plausible alternative. Even a slight inkling of a possibility would be better than nothing.
If you care to look a little deeper at the evidence "for" evolution then you may be enlightened.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 10:03:49 PM · #644 |
Not entirely off subject, I just heard the most enlightening and reasonable interview with Martha Nussbaum on Bill Moyers Journal. I urge anyone interested in issues and history of church vs. state in the United States to try and catch this show when it airs again.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 10:42:54 AM · #645 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Seems to me that the same double standards Louis uses based on what side of a particular argument he is on (whether it is gun rights or gay rights), is also being used here. That is/was my only point. |
Only due to the staggering lack of a coherent argument, there is no point. |
1. I was truly amazed to see you agree with anything I posted - even with caveats.
2. I made a post regarding beastiality. You made a claim that it was offensive and a false argument. I posted examples of from you of both offensive and false arguments with nearly identical evidence as your post -
3. My argument is incoherent yet yours is the epitomy of reason.
Isn't flying here. You lost ground (with me) when the Mythra argument fell through. You have always posted with such assuredness and conviction, I was starting to think maybe you were a God. But alas it isn't so - just human. Not only are you human and capable of error, but you can even accuse me of a false argument using the exact tactics you employ - yet your arguments are sound. Nope. Your wrong. |
Assuming you mean "you're", show me how. |
Louis's argument was basically since homosexual unions (marriage) has been legal in Canada and the Netherlands for some time and no crys for equal rights of beastiality practitioners has been heard from, then the position suggesting a link between homosexual practices and any other immoral act is false. My argument was identical - since the adoption of shall issue concealed carry licenses in state after state after state, no wild west shootouts have ocurred, meaning the position that irresponsible behavior will automatically follow allowing competent persons to be armed in public, is false. You subscribe to the false argument of irresponsibility of gun owners even in face of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts that. Exactly the position you charged me with when I compared one immoral action with another.
If as you suggest, the fact of no claims of equal rights from beastiality practioners should be used as evidence to support gay marriage rights through out the world, then you should equally support unfettered access to personal arms since no abuse of such has ocurred where it has been adopted. I look forward to your support of gun rights in Canada. Likewise I will support gay marriage rights here in the states. - Fair?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 10:48:32 AM · #646 |
I saw this article in the Slate section of MSN today while searching around for news and thought is fits in this discussion. From the article headline: This is the first installment of a three-part series on radical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science. here's the link
Message edited by author 2008-04-19 10:49:55. |
|
|
|
04/19/2008 10:55:55 AM · #647 |
Also not entirely off subject. Interesting quote from a book that was getting schilled on one of the blogs I read.
Fundamentalism can be understood as a particular way of believing one's beliefs rather than referring to the actual content of one's beliefs.
It can be described as holding a belief system is such a way that it mutually excludes all other systems, rejecting other views in direct proportion to how much they differ from one's own. In contrast, the a/theistic approach can be seen as a form of disbelieving what one believes, or rather, believing IN God while remaining dubious concerning what one believes ABOUT God (a distinction that fundamentalism is unable to maintain). This does not actually contradict the idea of orthodoxy but rather allow us to understand it in a new light...
This a/theism is not then some temporary place of uncertainty on the way to spiritual maturity, bur rather is something that operates within faith as a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous form," - Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God.
I, like Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bertrand Russel, and other "popular" atheist writers tend to be skeptical of liberal or moderate religious belief. Such belief certainly has a lower cost/impact on society than fundamentalism, but by insisting on respect for non-evidence-based belief systems, moderate believers undercut the society's ability to be critical of the more strident religious forms.
I would still need to read the broader work to fully judge the approach Rollins is advocating here, but I still find it hard to see how anyone who considers themselves a "devout" Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. -- that is someone who claims to "buy in" to the central claims of their faith and put at least some interpretive stock in that faith's holy books -- is not "holding a belief system is such a way that it mutually excludes all other systems." Whether or not you are dogmatic in the literalism of your holy books, doesn't believing in "your" God, necessarily mean rejecting the belief of others? And doesn't this rejection necessarily entail some loss of respect and tolerance for views and beliefs in opposition?
To me, Rollin's approach sounds like another attempt to reconcile unfounded faith in the modern age. Some attempt to find some middle way between the fundamentalist approach -- absolute adoption of that faiths 1st century moral tenets and non-materialist worldview in rejection of the modern accumulation of knowledge -- and moderate approach -- rejecting or ignoring the tenets and practices of the faith that stand squarely in contradiction with the science, knowledge and moral understanding accumulated in the last millennium, while clinging to the central belief in a supernatural , interventionist god. The problem, to my mind, is this still leaves you holding to beliefs without evidence. That such a mind state should be considered desirable is quite disheartening.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 11:08:00 AM · #648 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I'm not quite sure where I can go with this.
I don't think that anyone on these threads has ever said that science can prove why homosexuality occurs. People have said that there are a number of plausible reasons for which there is evidence (though the interpretation of some of this evidence is disputed - hardly warranting the description of "myth") - the only people who claim to know for certain are those making a religiously fundamental argument.
When I ask some kind of evidence for god, we do not ask for indisputable proof. On the one side of the debate we have a thousand billion or so items of evidence all consistent with evolution. On the other hand there is precisely zero evidence for god. I'm not asking for the same weight of evidence as exists for evolution, just enough to make it a plausible alternative. Even a slight inkling of a possibility would be better than nothing.
If you care to look a little deeper at the evidence "for" evolution then you may be enlightened. |
1. I do not completely understand the evolution argument - but what I do understand in not problematic for me. For my limited understanding, it seems completely plausible to me that some from of evolution is reasonable to conclude from the historical fissil evidence currently discovered.
2. "When I ask some kind of evidence for god, we do not ask for indisputable proof." To me this is not quite accurate. Many examples have been put forth; (3 of the worlds religions use the same core books for their faith), archeology has unearthed many many artifacts consistent with biblical accounts of history, completely unexplained occurrences (like those at Lourdes) with thurough vetting - has concluded to have ocurred outside anything of our understanding and classified as miracles, lastly the beholden sight of the Grand Canyon at sunset is the breathtaking evidence of a creators existence...all lead some to conclude that a God is possible. Yet the overwhelming critique of each of these is the constant barrage of no proof - no absolute proof. That is in direct contradiction to "we do not ask for indisputable proof". Yes you do.
3. When your link to evolutions proof contained many uses of words like "may", "could", "might", and I point that out as inconsistent with the standard used against religious arguments, your claim is they are different. OK. But not to me. If I present archeological evidence of an historical event that is recorded in scripture, at the timeperiod that the scriptural event was supposed to take place, then for me it "could" or "may" or "might" have happened. No different than your link. Does it prove it happened - no. But neither is evolution proven with every single piece of evidence and every t crossed and every i dotted. Does it look promising - sure, but even then it does not in and of itself necessarily exclude a creator.
That is my point. You argue as though anyone who "might" or "may" or "could" believe in a creator is too stupid to see their own folly, yet science uses much the same practice of conclusions based upon what is known without all the facts being in, therefore requiring some measure of "belief" in the remaining undiscovered evidence.
I don't see a distinction of enough character to blanketly dismiss the possibility of a creator - and neither do many scientists - as they also conclude that it "may" be a possibility.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 11:14:24 AM · #649 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I saw this article in the Slate section of MSN today while searching around for news and thought is fits in this discussion. From the article headline: This is the first installment of a three-part series on radical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science. here's the link |
Great set of articles, and a very good illustration of what I was trying to get at in my previous post. The "paranoid style" that the Salon articles talk about would not be possible (or at least would be heavily marginalized) if the people in our society were better educated in regard to critical thinking and science. Most of the posts in this thread and others on DPC that are attacking scientific knowledge do so from a position of either ignorance or woeful misunderstanding of basic scientific tenets and methods.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 11:38:34 AM · #650 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Louis's argument was basically since homosexual unions (marriage) has been legal in Canada and the Netherlands for some time and no crys for equal rights of beastiality practitioners has been heard from, then the position suggesting a link between homosexual practices and any other immoral act is false. |
I never called any particular act "immoral". And your logic is still circuitous, and attributes things to me I never said.
Originally posted by Flash:
You subscribe to the false argument of irresponsibility of gun owners.... |
That's a fabrication. I never once said that. I never once hinted that all gun owners are irresponsible, so your point's moot. What I will say is that gun ownership as some kind of protected right is an offence, and I, like the mayor of Toronto, Canada's largest city, and many other politicians and citizens' groups, support a federal ban on handgun ownership in Canada. Guns are offensive. The populace does not need to be armed.
And as far as "wild west shootings" not happening, you would be patently wrong about that, because that recently has occurred here, leading to tragedy, and the call from the Mayor for the federal ban on handguns. That gun was legally owned by the shooter, registered, and above-board. So legal gun ownership certainly does lead to nightmare scenarios, "wild west shootings", irresponsible behaviour, and loss of life. There's no need for anyone to own a handgun in this country.
Further, to suggest that a valid comparison can be made between the general public having a right to "unfettered access" to weapons created for the sole purpose of taking human life, and the ability of same-sex couples who have been in long-term relationships for decades to have the same legal protections as opposite-sex couples who have been in long-term relationships for decades, is, again, base, self-serving, and offensive. |
|
