Liberals vs Conservatives
- Thread starter yeahmon
- Start date
californiagrown
Active member
13452387:yeahmon said:
You are denying them the same rights guaranteed a hetero couple in a civil union.
I am not denying you anything. Whatever rights and freedoms you have, they should have. Pretty damn simple.
Why are you OK with interracial marriage? Or sex before marriage, or masturbation? All things banned by the bible. All things I'm sure you wouldn't support being illegal.
The argument against same sex civil unions is THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT used against interracial civil unions in the 60's. It was hateful then, and its hateful now.
louie.mirags
Active member
13452438:yeahmon said:
you're against sex before masturbation? why?
louie.mirags
Active member
13452344:yeahmon said:
"Some people might argue that if you are “genetically gay” but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven’t accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality."
fromhttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/
broto
Active member
13452306:yeahmon said:
You know that there is a difference between "freedom of belief" and "freedom of practice," right? The first amendment disallows the governments from persecuting individuals for believing, preaching, and trying to spread their religion. However, the right to freely exercise your religion is not always granted. Take, for example, the Mormons of the United States. Do you have a problem with a fact that polygamy is still illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is a large part of exercising Mormonism? Just because one's actions are motivated by religion does not mean that they can do whatever they want. If you are an advocate for such religious freedoms, then you must be an advocate for ALL religious freedoms, i.e, human sacrifice, polygamy, etc. You lose your right to practice your religion freely when it infringes upon the rights of others.
ndye
Active member
13452447:yeahmon said:
Yes, and I claim that anyone who was against civil rights were bigots, and there are millions of people who were against civil rights and they were bigots.
Human life, all human life, even without god is sacred. And the freedom of all people in the US needs to be held at the highest regard, not just human rights with a filter of religious ideals deciding who gets rights and who doesnt.
You are of a dying view, and it saddens me in part you have been brainwashed in the way you have. I know arguing with you is futile, as your views are stamped in beliefs and not logic. I would fight to the end of time for your right to worship in the way you do, I just wish you would respect the right of others to decide what they do in their personal lives.
californiagrown
Active member
13452447:yeahmon said:
Yes that is true. Similarly, all the people against interracial marriage are bigots. YOU are a hateful bigot.
But you are allowed to have hateful opinions in this country. We are not allowed to have hateful laws.
Disalow gay marriage all you want, as long as there is a govt institution for all couples that gives them equal civil rights.
Schlutz
Member
13452448:yeahmon said:
because sinning is fun, duh... Why would anyone in their right mind be afraid of some invisible, fanciful force that will punish them for all eternity for enjoying a natural pleasure. Go ahead and be afraid your entire life, I don't plan to infringe upon your right to be a brainwashed coward, but I also don't plan on standing by and watching while the cowards infringe upon other people's rights. Especially when they are people who have been stigmatized for most of their lives and have had the courage to be themselves despite the constant persecution they face.
yeahmon
Member
13452472:Schlutz said:
It's not being afraid it's worshiping the being who gave me everything. Without God I wouldn't be here, no one would. We wouldn't be able to ski, we couldn't do anything. We all sin, I wish we didn't but it's a fact of life. Thankfully God forgives our sin, he even gave sacrificed his son so that our sins our forgiven. But just because he forgives out sin that doesn't mean we should "strive to sin". It's really sad that a number of you don't believe in god. I am not gonna try to change you but I will pray for you. I hope someday you van feel the glory of the Holy Spirit flowing through you!
onenerdykid
Active member
13452448:yeahmon said:
again to my earlier argument a few pages ago- you can't just reference the bible/religion and be done with your argument.
Saying that something amounts to "sin" is the same as saying "because God said so". It only works when someone holds the same religious beliefs as you.
If you want to win any moral/ethical debate, then you need to use logic & reason first. Not biblical contexts.
californiagrown
Active member
13452473:yeahmon said:
Embrace reexaming your views and opinions. It's part of growth as a person. Don't just call people stupid, close your eyes, plug your ears and repeat " I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't..."
onenerdykid
Active member
13452301:yeahmon said:
13452361:onenerdykid said:
I would like you to address/answer these questions.
Bear in mind that no one chooses to feel a feeling- they are automatic. When you are attracted to a girl, you do not choose to be attracted to a girl. You just are. This is what being gay or straight is like. Either you are attracted to the same sex, or the opposite sex. It's not a choice- it is an automatic reaction to the stimulus you are exposed to.
What you choose to do is act on said feeling. This is what we have control over and where moral/ethical praise or blame is placed.
onenerdykid
Active member
13452487:yeahmon said:
stay on target.
One of the things you and everyone who likes to argue should investigate are Informal Fallacies.
These are logical mistakes that debaters constantly make. Their arguments sound good, but are actually flawed and using them results in a falsehood.
Two points extra points will be awarded to the person who defines the following:
argumentum ad hominem fallacy
straw man fallacy
red herring fallacy
these three are being used by people in this thread over and over again in their argumentation.
californiagrown
Active member
13452489:yeahmon said:
Haha actually you're the not so bright one there. I simply quoted his signature like 5 times haha. I never disputed anything he said...
Way to avoid hard to rebutt points though. Keep on changing that subject haha
yeahmon
Member
13452496:onenerdykid said:
Straw man
A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
Red herring
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
ad hominem
An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
Wow we are all using these fallacys
ndye
Active member
13452496:onenerdykid said:
1. Your argument is inconsistent with your argument (i think)
2. Believing you have given a defense when not actually refuting the argument presented but rather addressing something else (i think)
3. Something attempting to distract from the main argument at hand I believe?
onenerdykid
Active member
13452501:yeahmon said:
This is partly what I mean by using "logic".
Logic is not simply arguing your point- there are rules to arguing and when you either don't use the rules or misuse the rules, then the conclusion of your argument is invalid.
Informal logic (the kind used in conversational debate) pays close attention to these fallacies (there are about 20-30 of them) and tries to avoid their usage and catch others using them.
Formal logic is basically like math, and commonly avoided since it requires breaking down someone's argument into symbols and syllogisms. It's far harder and takes way longer.
Do yourself a favor and try to familiarize yourself with as many as you can since everyday common debates use them all the time and no one catches them.
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
I have come to the conclusion that yeahmon is a glorious troll.
onenerdykid
Active member
13452501:yeahmon said:
13452502:ndye said:
In other words:
ad hominem: attacking the person, instead of their argument. If you follow it through, this is actually the basis of racism, and other forms of bigotry.
straw man: creating a secondary/weaker argument and destroying it and then concludes because that secondary argument was destroyed that so is the original.
red herring: creating a secondary argument that is off-topic (however slight it may be) and destroying that argument and concluding that since this argument was destroyed that so must the original.
this thread, the gun debate one, and most other heated debates fall victim to these fallacies all the time. In my experience, staying on topic and not using extraneous arguments is quite difficult and takes some dedicated reasoning. A to B to C to D sounds easy enough but most people go A to D to P to C to F.
louie.mirags
Active member
13452447:yeahmon said:
before you go defending people of faith remember that ISIS also uses religion as an excuse...
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
For those who were concerned about ISIS read this:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8852217/isis-tal-abyad-raqqa
Basic tl;dr: ISIS has overstretched themselves in both the territorial and military power sense. ISIS lacks the military numbers to combat over 200,000-300,000 combatants divided between the Kurds, Iraqi military, and Shi'ite militia.
My prediction is that ISIS will eventually cease to exist as a "state" and turn into a group much like Al-Qaeda, operating within state borders as individual entities connected only by the name.
On a more controversial note there is a new development coming from Turkey, who plan on introducing 18,000 troops on their border. Ironically, these troops are not to fight ISIS, but rather combat the rising power of the Kurdish groups fighting in that region. It will be interesting to see what NATO does (if anything) and if Turkey will be dragged into this mess as well.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8852217/isis-tal-abyad-raqqa
Basic tl;dr: ISIS has overstretched themselves in both the territorial and military power sense. ISIS lacks the military numbers to combat over 200,000-300,000 combatants divided between the Kurds, Iraqi military, and Shi'ite militia.
My prediction is that ISIS will eventually cease to exist as a "state" and turn into a group much like Al-Qaeda, operating within state borders as individual entities connected only by the name.
On a more controversial note there is a new development coming from Turkey, who plan on introducing 18,000 troops on their border. Ironically, these troops are not to fight ISIS, but rather combat the rising power of the Kurdish groups fighting in that region. It will be interesting to see what NATO does (if anything) and if Turkey will be dragged into this mess as well.
Huck_Norris
Active member
13452242:louie.mirags said:
He is definitely under 18 and angry that his shitty min-wage paycheck has taxes taken out. Guaranteed. I can fucking feel it through his wording and (lack of) articulation. It's his childlike anger and bitterness towards even the most basic principles of existing in a greater society that really lets me know he's just a pubefarmer that doesn't know shit. You can see it in his posts- he doesn't know what any of the terms he's throwing around mean at all, he just knows the people around him told him this is bullshit. Kid's a fucking sheep of the highest order- one that believes taking the rights of others away increases his own somehow.
13452301:yeahmon said:
Bahahahaha oh man, you haven' got a clue know how wide open your windows are right now! Let me explain to you how the human mind comes to recognize "facts". If you can honestly say that you KNOW FOR A FACT homosexuality is a choice, the only way your mind could file that in the FACT column is if you were actively making that choice yourself. It can literally be the only way your brain can place "fact" status on that, and it's hilarious to me that people don't realize they're telling you they love cock as they proclaim their vitriol for gays. If you think being gay is a choice, then you're gay and choosing not to act on it, simple as that.
So yeah, thanks for playing kid- now go fuck yourself. Thanks for admitting that you're definitely gay and fighting through the urges though, that's cool. Your repressive bullshit won't get you anywhere but eviscerated here though, just a heads up.
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
13452549:Huck_Norris said:
He's 16. I was getting the same feeling earlier in the thread when he was discussing politics so i asked him. So you his meantl scope is very limited and it seems his parents did a great job brainwashing him with their warped beliefs.
Huck_Norris
Active member
13452504:yeahmon said:
Further proof? As if to indicate you've provided any "proof" to begin with? Lol.
The only thing you proved so far is that you're a closet homosexual haha
Funkadelic
Active member
13452464:californiagrown said:
Just figured I'd chime in. The bible has a lot of messed up laws, but there is nothing in the bible against interracial marriage. Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman and the bible says God condemned those who gave Moses a hard time about it. The bible says a marriage should not be unequally yoked, meaning a believer should not marry a non-believer... maybe that's what you're referring to? But it has nothing to do with race.
That being said I agree with everyone here saying gay people should be allowed to get married. I don't understand how some people can't get past the outdated laws of a 2000 year old text.
yeahmon
Member
13452549:Huck_Norris said:
First off i would like to say as i have said before in this thread attacking me personally gets us nowhere. I know the point of your post was to frustrate me. Good Try
now to the main topic, in my research i have found that sexuality is a very tricky topic when trying to prove with science. As a culture we are very "Homophobic" in general that is why blaming sexuality as an innate trait seems to be a very easy way out. the research that being gay is an innate trait is very thin indeed. the fact of the matter is no one is born gay or straight. the excuse that people are born gay just makes our homophobic society fell better about allowing homosexuality which we really deep down have a problem with. now i could try to speak at length on this matter but i could not do it as eloquently as the links below. i hope you actually read them they are quite good and informative. i learned quite a bit from them
http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/michael-brown/2014/09/08/no-one-is-born-gay
Funkadelic
Active member
13452575:yeahmon said:First off i would like to say as i have said before in this thread attacking me personally gets us nowhere. I know the point of your post was to frustrate me. Good Try
now to the main topic, in my research i have found that sexuality is a very tricky topic when trying to prove with science. As a culture we are very "Homophobic" in general that is why blaming sexuality as an innate trait seems to be a very easy way out. the research that being gay is an innate trait is very thin indeed. the fact of the matter is no one is born gay or straight. the excuse that people are born gay just makes our homophobic society fell better about allowing homosexuality which we really deep down have a problem with. now i could try to speak at length on this matter but i could not do it as eloquently as the links below. i hope you actually read them they are quite good and informative. i learned quite a bit from them
http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/michael-brown/2014/09/08/no-one-is-born-gay
The most compelling evidence the articles you cite use is that there is no scientific evidence. But unfortunately for those old articles, there is now scientific evidence that people are born gay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...suggests-genetic-link-male-homosexuality.html
yeahmon
Member
For further proof in Richmond Va there is a set of identical twins. one of them is gay and the other is not. identical twins have the exact same genes so this proves that homosexuality is not genetic. If sexuality is genetic then both would be gay and vice versa.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/ex-gay-billboard-virginia_n_6301334.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/ex-gay-billboard-virginia_n_6301334.html
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
13452603:yeahmon said:
Oh huffinton post. What a credible source. Jesus man, just quit while you're behind already.
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
13452607:yeahmon said:
Yeah and on the top line where it says "update" it also mentions that one of the twins addmitted they are not identical. I bet you typed in "proof you are not born gay" into google and picked one of the top results without actually reading it.
Funkadelic
Active member
miroz
Active member
13452627:yeahmon said:
What do you know about credible sources? Those two links were hand picked from the first three pages of a Google search "are people born gay." One is a blog post, the other was written by a guy whose "heart burns for spiritual awakening." You're 16 and haven't read a real scientific paper in your life. Nor are you qualified to make sweeping judgements based on the content of news stories. The hilarious part is that the authors don't even make those conclusions themselves! None of these links are peer reviewed journal articles from respected experts in genetics or human biology. Last time I checked, you weren't one of those either.
As a graduate student in STEM, I take offense at your unbelievable arrogance in attempting to use "science" to further your personal beliefs.
I must admit that I too am unqualified to speak on the matter. I there have been some good posts here, but I think the best link in this thread is the Scientific American blog article posted by louie.mirags. Scientific American is not in and of itself a peer-reviewed journal, but it seeks to condense the contents of peer reviewed articles into content more digestible for the average American; the story itself was written by an experienced science writer. The article is evenhanded, admitting that we still have no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is wholly genetic. The key word there is wholly, because though it has been shown that homosexual traits and physical qualities are to some extent hereditary, the effect of environment is a huge factor in behavioral development of all kinds and that can't be quantified. So the verdict is still out, but the evidence points towards genetics.
Funkadelic's DailyMail article is even more recent, though outside experts are calling the results interesting but inconclusive. More will be needed.
This issue exists in the realm between belief and scientific proof. The evidence is pointing at one conclusion, but that's not yet been definitively shown. For now, you can babble on and try to support your 'beliefs,' but history may end up painting you as an idiot. If you want a better path without accepting other conclusion, take the middle ground and admit we can't definitively know that yet. But don't push your beliefs as truth or science.