Where are my civil rights?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:10 am

rer wrote:As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not.


Bullshit. Ignorant and Irresponsible bullshit.

teflor the ranger wrote:Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).

(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:19 am

Mori, I don't know what dictionary you found the definition of condescension in, but saying something like, "hurrah for showing open-mindedness" is, unfortunately for you, condescension...but I guess you'll probably spout something about perception and the like, but we all know what it looks like when translated to text. Talk about internal consistancy.

Anyway...

moritheil wrote:I'm noting the absence of an answer to my point, the basics of which are quoted again below for convenient reading. Well, I guess no one would want to concede in a thread like this.

moritheil wrote:Liberals are not justified in doing this, by their own standards. You want to judge Christians by liberal standards when the liberals aren't even holding to their own standards? Do you realize how silly that is? Shall I spell this out for you?

Liberal standard used: Not acting or arguing against someone on the basis of their personal beliefs and code of actions.
Liberals - failed
Christians - failed

Christian standard used: Speaking up for a rule outlined in the Bible, even when unpopular.
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded

Plausibility standard used: Internal consistency
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded


How are liberals supposed to succeed in #2 when we are attempting to show how unfair and biased it is? You're asking for the impossible. Also, how can Christians perform #2 without violating #1? Again, if you lump #1 and #2 together, neither side would be able to be consistant.

Also, as far as #1 goes, this is an argument based upon subjective material such as morality and the bible. These are things that do not rely on factual evidence. Of course, you could use fact to back up your opinions with historical evidence, but that does little to effect the present or the argument. So, as far as #1 goes, it is contradictory of an debate is in this context.

For #2, why would I speak up for a rule in the Bible when I find it to be wrong? I can list other things in the Bible that would attack the validity of somebody only following that rule, but it would fall on deaf ears.

For #3, explain to me how we are inconsistant except when it would defeat the purpose of debate? I have attacked somebody when I have been attacked or I saw them attack another person. Also, how can you say that Christians have succeeded at internal consistancy when the Bible is half contradictory? How can you say that Christians are being internaly consistant when they ignore one rule in the Bible, but stand by another until death? Example: It is a sin to shave your beard in any other form but square edges. It is a sin to masturbate. How many Christians shave their beards without square edges and masturbate? Why not push for laws forbiding this. The fact is, they are uncomfortable with homosexuality and not non-square beards; therefor, they will not attempt to stop this especially when they are guilty of it themselves. This is the opposite of consistancy and is, in fact, hypocracy.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:22 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
rer wrote:As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not.


Bullshit. Ignorant and Irresponsible bullshit.

teflor the ranger wrote:Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).

(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)


What, should we just accept your way of arguing as the ONLY way of arguing? You are ignoring the fact that there ARE other ways to argue this topic effectively...then you just call it bullshit and point to something you said as if you are some kind of authority on the subject of debate. Please...Understand this, you are not God, you do not know everything, therefor, you can not make statements such as this because it would require something that humans can not posess...perfect knowledge.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:26 am

Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
rer wrote:As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not.


Bullshit. Ignorant and Irresponsible bullshit.

teflor the ranger wrote:Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).

(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)


What, should we just accept your way of arguing as the ONLY way of arguing? You are ignoring the fact that there ARE other ways to argue this topic effectively...then you just call it bullshit and point to something you said as if you are some kind of authority on the subject of debate. Please...Understand this, you are not God, you do not know everything, therefor, you can not make statements such as this because it would require something that humans can not posess...perfect knowledge.


Actually, I was refering to this:

"As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible"

Which is a false accusation.

Thank you for the most wild interpretation possible.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:46 am

Kifle:

You are supposed to hold up to your own standards in this debate. You are not. No amount of complaining to me about how "hardchore Christians" don't follow the rules that Liberals would like them to follow, and it's therefore terribly inconvenient for you to follow those rules, is going to help your cause.


Now, for the details:

I listed the Christians not following Liberal rules as a concession to your side, to show that I was being fair. To be fair to them, I had to list Liberals as not following their standards. This should be pretty easy to follow. The meat of the matter is that neither side in this discussion is acting how the other would want them to, but Liberals aren't acting how they themselves would want people to act.

I have attacked somebody when I have been attacked or I saw them attack another person.


Therein lies the problem. Is this about attacking or is this about discussing some issues?

Regarding all your other random arguments about Christianity, they're pretty far out, but whether or not you're accurate on them, (and if you want to discuss some, you know how to contact me on the side) they have no bearing on this debate. This isn't a thread on Christianity. I'm only interested in the internal consistency of each side saying things about homosexual marriage (or same sex unions, or whatever terms you prefer). I don't care if, in your mind, Christians are justified in believing in their deity. It quite simply isn't an issue regarding the fairness of the debate.

Do you realize how absurd your last answer looks? I'm pointing out the folly of attacking someone based on their religious beliefs, or attacking a religion, and you respond by attacking the religion some more.

Christians are justified by their own standards in speaking their minds on homosexuality. Liberals are not justified by their own standard in attacking a religion or attacking people for holding specific religious beliefs. None of your attempting to muddy the waters by adding additional, extraneous issues changes that.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:59 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Granted there are regional differences, so as always when someone says "all" of something they are automatically wrong. All three of us are currently guilty of that with this issue.


Complete, utter, unabashed, slanderous bullshit. This false accusation is fully groundless and without base. I made no claim as to all of Greek or Roman society, but to merely point out that rape and prostitution of women were problems that their societies had. You are continuing to put words in my mouth and that sort of slander is completely unwelcome.


Sarvis wrote:For all your talk of proper arguments, it seems as though your point here is simply that liberals are not worth listening to. Well guess what, conservatives aren't worth listening to either.


What you do is slander. It is the poison that is ruining our country, and destroying our unity. The reason why I have not posted my opinion, is that I merely fight the ignorance that pervades society and these forums, and if that should make me conservative, so be it.



Teflor, I will just adopt your attitude now and call everything YOU say Bullshit!

How would you like that asshole?

Look, you said it was pure bullshit to say Greeks admired homosexuality. Well, you were talking about all of Greece then and YOU ARE WRONG. You are wrong because you said Greece, not some regions of Greece.\

So yes, what you are saying is pure and utter bullshit. I'm glad you are here to further the cause of deliberation in this country! Obviously if Kerry had just said bullshit every few minutes in the debates he would have won, because that is the only true way to argue!

How is it slander to say <i>what you have been doing</i>? That's bullshit, utter, ignorant, irresponsible bullshit.

So go on with your current tactic of calling every argument for gay marraige bullshit, while trying to appear so damn morally superior, which you are accusing liberals of by the way, by claiming to argue responsibly. Good job. Asshat.


<b>Moritheil</b>

I haven't responded to your point because I don't feel I fit that profile. Maybe you should ask Teflor? Calling everything we say bullshit is really little more than trying to tell us to shut up and close down discussion.

However, I'll take a quick stab at things in general:

I haven't seen this too much in general, though there are only a few forums I really keep up with. I have seen it in the other direction. My guess is that there is a wide range of people within any "group." In fact, this is why grouping people as "liberal" or "conservative" isn't generally very useful except for setting yourself apart from them. Teflor likes to talk about dirty liberals and how we can't argue properly. What he's really saying though is that 2 or 3 people on Sojourn can't argue properly. They may be conservatives on every issue accept gay marriage! Maybe they are non-political about everything but gay marriage. Who the hell knows?

Labeling people like he has done just makes it easier to bash them...

You're going to see liberals who accuse conservatives of something while engaging in the behavior themselves. This is not a liberal thing, it is just some people out there who are taking things to extremes.

Yeah, not being articulate enough. Ok, a comparison:

Most people out there like animals and have some respect for the environment and such. A very small number of them are so extreme about it that they become PETA people.

In the same way, there are lots of people out there who hold liberal values take it to an extreme and try to shut down those who don't share their values. This is obviously wrong, just as many of the actions PETA engages in are wrong.

However, it is not something we ALL do... moreso the internet is a breeding ground of such behavior so you likely will see it more often. :(

Like with Teflor here.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:11 am

Sarvis wrote:Look, you said it was pure bullshit to say Greeks admired homosexuality.


Bullshit.

teflor the ranger wrote:Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).



Hey, it looks like I said stuff like:

"The Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship"

and stuff like

"Plauged by raping of woman and prostitution of women."

You're full of it Sarvis.

And all of this was actually in response to Rer's Supposed Fact:

"6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

Which is bullshit. It also is a FAR cry from "Greeks admired homosexuality."

So full of it.


Sarvis wrote:So go on with your current tactic of calling every argument for gay
marraige bullshit, while trying to appear so damn morally superior, which you are accusing liberals of by the way, by claiming to argue responsibly. Good job. Asshat.


Actually, I've argued for gay marriage.

teflor the ranger wrote:"Love thy enemies, do good onto those who hate you, bless those that would curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you."
Luke 6:27

1) To hate, curse, and mistreat homosexuals is against the tennants of the bible, for the Lord is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."


You're so full of bullshit Sarvis that I'm afraid that ripping you might spill bullshit on me. Furthermore, I'm just trying to shut down the slander and the ignorance so prevalant in this thread.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:25 am

I've been lurking, and following this thread with a great deal of interest. Some excellent points have been made, but generally, it seems that everyone is in agreement about the issue of homosexual marriage.

rer wrote:1. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it reads a "Legal union of two people for life."

-or-

2. Changing the legislature regarding marriages to make Marriages and Civil Unions equivalent from a legal standpoint, conferring the same rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the homosexual Union.


I am against the marriage of homosexuals. I do not believe that two men should be able to marry each other, nor two women. Conversely, I have no problem with homosexual couples taking part in a civil ceremony which confers a legally recognised status of union.

However, opportunity for this civil union must be extended to heterosexual couples, also.

This is why:

1) Marriage is a religious institution which has civil benefits. Most wedding ceremonies in America are performed 'before God.'
2) God is not in favour of homosexuality.
3) While I 'do not presume to know the mind of God', it seems sensible to assume that if He considers homosexuality to be a sin, He wouldn't endorse homosexual marriage.
4) Some people don't believe in God, and do not wish to be subject to His will. This shouldn't preclude them from making a commitment to be together. Not all of those people will be homosexual.

To say that a civil union should carry the same benefits as a marriage might seem that all I'm doing is complaining about the meaning of a word, and as has been noted already on this thread, even dictionary definitions boil down to a matter of opinion, and the meanings of words are subject to change over time. But it's not the word itself that means so much. It's the concept, the institution and the commitment before God that 'the Religious Right' are upholding. And that's why I believe the distinction absolutely must be made.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:26 am

Claim you are fighting against ignorance all you want Teflor. What you are really doing is being an offensive asshole.

Any retard can just say bullshit to anything anyone says. Now you are claiming that you argued for gay marriage when two posts ago yo usaid you maintained no position on it at all!

You are trolling, and blatantly at that. You don't care about actual debate, you just want to piss everyone off and you're doing a damn good job of it too.

The only question is why Shar isn't in here reprimanding you like she did me in the Kerry thread, where I wasn't being half so offensive...


I said Rer was right about Greeks and homosexuality.

The first sentence in your reply was "Bullshit." Therefore you are are saying I was dead wrong and thus reversing the tautology rer and I had put forth. Reversing a tautology to it's opposite is a tautology.

So, Teflor, bullshit.

IF yo uare really trying to shut down the slander and ignorance, why are you engaging in such slanderous tactics? You are only encouraging it, and furthermore you <b>know</b> you are encouraging it.

If you want civil discourse you do not say the other person's argument is bullshit. Nor do you say someone is full of shit.
Last edited by Sarvis on Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:32 am

Sarvis wrote:Claim you are fighting against ignorance all you want Teflor. What you are really doing is being an offensive asshole.


I refuted your points, and you are the only one calling anyone an asshole or asshat.

Furthermore, it seems that you are the enjoying this:

Sarvis wrote:How would you like that asshole?


Let me answer a few questions you had, just to show you that I'm not here for the four letter word contest.

Sarvis wrote:How is it slander to say what you have been doing?


It isn't, the only problem is that you have been making stuff up. See how I have been using actual quotes? You see, slander is when you say something that is untrue, and when I respond with what was actually said, it means that you were wrong.

As well as ignorant and irresponsible.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:36 am

Reposting because teflor probably missed my edit:

I said Rer was right about Greeks and homosexuality.
The first sentence in your reply was "Bullshit." Therefore you are are saying I was dead wrong and thus reversing the tautology rer and I had put forth. Reversing a tautology to it's opposite is a tautology.
So, Teflor, bullshit.
IF yo uare really trying to shut down the slander and ignorance, why are you engaging in such slanderous tactics? You are only encouraging it, and furthermore you know you are encouraging it.
If you want civil discourse you do not say the other person's argument is bullshit. Nor do you say someone is full of shit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:39 am

Reposting 'cause you probably missed my edit:

Sarvis wrote:Look, you said it was pure bullshit to say Greeks admired homosexuality.


Bullshit.

teflor the ranger wrote:Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).



Hey, it looks like I said stuff like:

"The Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship"

and stuff like

"Plauged by raping of woman and prostitution of women."

You're full of it Sarvis.

And all of this was actually in response to Rer's Supposed Fact:

"6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

Which is bullshit. It also is a FAR cry from "Greeks admired homosexuality."

So full of it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:40 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Claim you are fighting against ignorance all you want Teflor. What you are really doing is being an offensive asshole.


I refuted your points, and you are the only one calling anyone an asshole or asshat.


Right, because saying someone is full of bullshit isn't offensive, and just saying an argument is bullshit is valid refutation!


Let me answer a few questions you had, just to show you that I'm not here for the four letter word contest.


That's an interesting claim, since your reply to almost every post for a page and a half has started with "bullshit."


Sarvis wrote:It isn't, the only problem is that you have been making stuff up. See how I have been using actual quotes? You see, slander is when you say something that is untrue, and when I respond with what was actually said, it means that you were wrong.


See how you left stuff out of your actual quotes? Like the fact that they started with "Bullshit." It's like Republicans "quoting" Kerry as saying he would having a global test. Oh wait, you fell for that one.

Sorry, but when someone says something, and both Rer and I claimed Greeks preferred homosexual sex to heterosexual your response was bullshit." If that is not saying we were totally wrong then what is it? Bah, explained already in my edit/repost before.

As well as ignorant and irresponsible.


I bow to your superior bullshit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:44 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Claim you are fighting against ignorance all you want Teflor. What you are really doing is being an offensive asshole.


I refuted your points, and you are the only one calling anyone an asshole or asshat.


No you didn't actually.

You only claimed there was prostitution and rape in Greece, which doesn't actually mean the general public didn't prefer homosexuality.

However you DID preface it with "bullshit" which was a good way to piss people off and distract them from the weakness of your inane argument.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:44 am

Sarvis wrote:Right, because saying someone is full of bullshit isn't offensive, and just saying an argument is bullshit is valid refutation!


I never said it wasn't offensive. Point Refuted.

Sarvis wrote:That's an interesting claim, since your reply to almost every post for a page and a half has started with "bullshit."


You had a question and I answered it. Point Refuted.


Sarvis wrote:See how you left stuff out of your actual quotes? Like the fact that they started with "Bullshit." It's like Republicans "quoting" Kerry as saying he would having a global test. Oh wait, you fell for that one.


Prove it. With or without them your points are still refuted. Point Refuted.

Sarvis wrote:Sorry, but when someone says something, and both Rer and I claimed Greeks preferred homosexual sex to heterosexual your response was bullshit." If that is not saying we were totally wrong then what is it? Bah, explained already in my edit/repost before.


Actually: "6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

Notice the "almost NEVER done with the opposite sex." Point Refuted.

All Points Refuted. Return to regularly scheduled activities.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:45 am

Teflor... Sarvis...Take it outside...
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:45 am

Sarvis wrote:You only claimed there was prostitution and rape in Greece, which doesn't actually mean the general public didn't prefer homosexuality.


"6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

Point Refuted.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:47 am

Sarvis, let me try to explain this to you.

"6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

DOES NOT EQUAL

"Greeks admired homosexuality."

Which I do not refute.

teflor the ranger wrote:Hey, it looks like I said stuff like:

"The Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship"


This is why you are so full of it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:54 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Right, because saying someone is full of bullshit isn't offensive, and just saying an argument is bullshit is valid refutation!


I never said it wasn't offensive. Point Refuted.


I said you were being an offensive asshole, to which you replied I was the only one calling someone an asshole. It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

It's like how Bush never claimed Saddam had WMD!

Stop learning how to argue from the GOP playbook, it is the fast track to irresponsible debate.

Sarvis wrote:That's an interesting claim, since your reply to almost every post for a page and a half has started with "bullshit."


You had a question and I answered it. Point Refuted.


Huh? How does saying you answered a question refuting the point that you start nearly every post by saying bullshit?

Sarvis wrote:See how you left stuff out of your actual quotes? Like the fact that they started with "Bullshit." It's like Republicans "quoting" Kerry as saying he would having a global test. Oh wait, you fell for that one.


Prove it. With or without them your points are still refuted. Point Refuted.


Well let's see... here's what you _claim_ to have said:

"The Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship"

and stuff like

"Plauged by raping of woman and prostitution of women."


What you REALLY said was:

Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Gee, has a bit of a different tone if you only look at one half of what you said doesn't it? You are saying we were dead wrong and you can't be bothered to prove it which is exactly what I SAID you were doing. Therefore I have not engaged in slander.



Sarvis wrote:Sorry, but when someone says something, and both Rer and I claimed Greeks preferred homosexual sex to heterosexual your response was bullshit." If that is not saying we were totally wrong then what is it? Bah, explained already in my edit/repost before.


Actually: "6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

Notice the "almost NEVER done with the opposite sex." Point Refuted.

All Points Refuted. Return to regularly scheduled activities.[/quote]
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:59 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Sarvis, let me try to explain this to you.

"6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex."

DOES NOT EQUAL

"Greeks admired homosexuality."

Which I do not refute.




So you are now claiming the the Greeks almost ALWAYS engaged in a form of sex which they did not admire?

I mean let's put this together:

Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is bullshit.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.

I said they admire gay sex, and you claim to not have refuted that.

Putting this together: Greeks almost always have straight sex even though they admire gay sex.

That seems likely...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:01 am

Sarvis wrote:I said you were being an offensive asshole, to which you replied I was the only one calling someone an asshole. It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

It's like how Bush never claimed Saddam had WMD!

Stop learning how to argue from the GOP playbook, it is the fast track to irresponsible debate.


You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


Sarvis wrote:Huh? How does saying you answered a question refuting the point that you start nearly every post by saying bullshit?


You merely stated that it was an interesting claim. It's not a claim. I said I would answer your question and I did. Point Refuted or Otherwise Invalidated


Sarvis wrote:"The Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship"

and stuff like

"Plauged by raping of woman and prostitution of women."

What you REALLY said was:

Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Ok. I'll go for the entire sentance.

"While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman)."

Point Refuted.

Sarvis wrote:Gee, has a bit of a different tone if you only look at one half of what you said doesn't it? You are saying we were dead wrong and you can't be bothered to prove it which is exactly what I SAID you were doing. Therefore I have not engaged in slander.


Tone doesn't change the facts (unless I was being sarcastic, which I was not.) Point Refuted. You were engaged in Slander.

All Points Refuted. Return to regularly scheduled activities.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:03 am

Sarvis wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is bullshit.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


B U L L S H I T (pardon the ironic placement)
n.
1) Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2) Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3) Insolent talk or behavior.

Apprantly, you have a different definition of the word 'bullshit'.

Bullshit != Opposite Statement is True.

LETS PLAY SUBSTITUTE!

Teflor's Sarvis SUBSTITUTE 1 wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is foolish, decietful, or boastful.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


Teflor's Sarvis SUBSTITUTE 2 wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


Teflor's Sarvis SUBSTITUTE 3 wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is Insolent talk or behavior.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


NOT A DICTIONARY SUB wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is the opposite of what is true.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


You're so blind you're making it hard for me to see.
He's not a Paladin! That's bullshit!
That means he MUST be an Anti-Paladin! OF COURSE.
A bard figdets nervously.
A druid chuckles politely to himself.
A ranger ignores Sarvis!



Oh yeah. Point refuted.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:20 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I said you were being an offensive asshole, to which you replied I was the only one calling someone an asshole. It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

It's like how Bush never claimed Saddam had WMD!

Stop learning how to argue from the GOP playbook, it is the fast track to irresponsible debate.


You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


I never said I didn't. You are only refuting points you claim I made now. Another GOP trick from this election.

I claimed you were being offensive by starting every post with "bullshit."

You have not refuted that, and you cannot refute that because you did so.

But I'll await your next accusation of slander with baited breath!

Sarvis wrote:Huh? How does saying you answered a question refuting the point that you start nearly every post by saying bullshit?


You merely stated that it was an interesting claim. It's not a claim. I said I would answer your question and I did. Point Refuted or Otherwise Invalidated


You claimed you were not here for a four letter word contest, after engaging in a page and a half worth of starting every post with "bullshit." That you have NOW started answering questions does not disprove that you engaged in a four-letter word offensive for so long.





<b>Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. </b>While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Ok. I'll go for the entire sentance.

"While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman)."

Point Refuted.


Really? So you leave off the first half of the quote again and that somehow refutes my point that you left off half the quote in order to misrepresent what you said in a more genial and less incorrect manner?

That's interesting logic!


Sarvis wrote:Gee, has a bit of a different tone if you only look at one half of what you said doesn't it? You are saying we were dead wrong and you can't be bothered to prove it which is exactly what I SAID you were doing. Therefore I have not engaged in slander.


Tone doesn't change the facts (unless I was being sarcastic, which I was not.) Point Refuted. You were engaged in Slander.


What facts exactly? The completely unproven and uncited claim that there was mass rape and prostitution in Greece? Or the claim that Greeks mostly engaged in straight sex despite preferring gay sex?


All Points Refuted. Return to regularly scheduled activities.


You should probably actually refute a point before saying soemthing like this.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:29 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is bullshit.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


B U L L S H I T (pardon the ironic placement)
n.
1) Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2) Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3) Insolent talk or behavior.

Apprantly, you have a different definition of the word 'bullshit'.

Bullshit != Opposite Statement is True.


It does mean the given statement is untrue. In this matter there are few other choices. One could say none, except if yo uwanted to claim the greeks didn't have sex at all I guess.



Here's a thought:

A responsible argument against rer's claim might have stated what was wrong with it, what the truth was and backed it up with some citations? Instead you just took the 4th grade path and called it bullshit.

I thought you were the one arguing FOR responsible debate?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:31 am

Sarvis wrote:<b>Moritheil</b>

I haven't responded to your point because I don't feel I fit that profile. Maybe you should ask Teflor? Calling everything we say bullshit is really little more than trying to tell us to shut up and close down discussion.

However, I'll take a quick stab at things in general:

I haven't seen this too much in general, though there are only a few forums I really keep up with. I have seen it in the other direction. My guess is that there is a wide range of people within any "group." In fact, this is why grouping people as "liberal" or "conservative" isn't generally very useful except for setting yourself apart from them. Teflor likes to talk about dirty liberals and how we can't argue properly. What he's really saying though is that 2 or 3 people on Sojourn can't argue properly. They may be conservatives on every issue accept gay marriage! Maybe they are non-political about everything but gay marriage. Who the hell knows?

Labeling people like he has done just makes it easier to bash them...

You're going to see liberals who accuse conservatives of something while engaging in the behavior themselves. This is not a liberal thing, it is just some people out there who are taking things to extremes.

Yeah, not being articulate enough. Ok, a comparison:

Most people out there like animals and have some respect for the environment and such. A very small number of them are so extreme about it that they become PETA people.

In the same way, there are lots of people out there who hold liberal values take it to an extreme and try to shut down those who don't share their values. This is obviously wrong, just as many of the actions PETA engages in are wrong.

However, it is not something we ALL do... moreso the internet is a breeding ground of such behavior so you likely will see it more often. :(

Like with Teflor here.


I have indeed noted that you have refrained from attacking religions in this thread simply because they disagree with your viewpoint on things. I am a little relieved to see at least that maturity on the boards.

While I'm still surprised by the nature of Kifle's responses, I can see that someone who feels strongly about something can go a little overboard when discussing it. That doesn't make my concerns go away; nor would the fundamental issues go away even if I stopped being concerned about them. However, I like to think I am not so wrapped up in my own perspective that I cannot have compassion. Clearly this an issue near to Kifle's heart, and it would be cruel to provoke him beyond reason.

I would say something about the personal attacks going on in this thread at this point, but I said I would only discuss matters of consistency.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:31 am

Sarvis wrote:It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

teflor the ranger wrote:You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


I never said I didn't. You are only refuting points you claim I made now. Another GOP trick from this election.


You called me an Asshole. There's no need for the quote. Point Refuted.

Sarvis wrote:I claimed you were being offensive by starting every post with "bullshit."

You have not refuted that, and you cannot refute that because you did so.


That's not a point, it's a fact. I called bullshit on what was bullshit. Your point is Invalidated.

Sarvis wrote:But I'll await your next accusation of slander with baited breath!


No, no, no you're coming back into the realm of truth. Good Sarvis.

Sarvis wrote:You claimed you were not here for a four letter word contest, after engaging in a page and a half worth of starting every post with "bullshit." That you have NOW started answering questions does not disprove that you engaged in a four-letter word offensive for so long.


It's not a contest. I was calling out bullshit points made as bullshit. You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Ok. I'll go for the entire sentance.

"While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman)."

Point Refuted.


Really? So you leave off the first half of the quote again and that somehow refutes my point that you left off half the quote in order to misrepresent what you said in a more genial and less incorrect manner?

That's interesting logic!


I've left off nothing. You left off most of the post, as well as what it is replying to. Needless to say, the whole statement was made in truth, and you cannot refute what I have actually said. The meaning in this sentance does not change in the context of what it was originally stated with. Your point is thus rebuked AGAIN. Bullshit shoveled.


Sarvis wrote:The completely unproven and uncited claim that there was mass rape and prostitution in Greece? Or the claim that Greeks mostly engaged in straight sex despite preferring gay sex?


This is slander. I did not use the word mass. I did not claim that the greeks were mostly engaged in straight sex. I did not claim that the greeks preferred gay sex. Furthermore, it's ignorant and irrepsonsible bullshit.


All Points Refuted. All bullshit shoveled. Return to regularly scheduled activities.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:36 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is bullshit.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


B U L L S H I T (pardon the ironic placement)
n.
1) Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2) Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3) Insolent talk or behavior.

Apprantly, you have a different definition of the word 'bullshit'.

Bullshit != Opposite Statement is True.


It does mean the given statement is untrue. In this matter there are few other choices. One could say none, except if yo uwanted to claim the greeks didn't have sex at all I guess.



Here's a thought:

A responsible argument against rer's claim might have stated what was wrong with it, what the truth was and backed it up with some citations? Instead you just took the 4th grade path and called it bullshit.

I thought you were the one arguing FOR responsible debate?


Firstly, evidence discussing ancient societys hve scant evidence at best.

Secondly, look. Let me enlighten you. There are things called degrees:

(*'ed remarks are bullshit)

*Greeks never have straight sex.
*Greeks almost never have straight sex.
Greeks very rarely have straight sex.
Greeks rarely have straight sex.
Greeks do not often have straight sex.
Greeks have as much straight sex as gay sex.
Greeks have just slightly more straight sex.
Greeks have a fair amount of straight sex.
Greeks have straight sex significantly more often than gay sex.
Greeks very rarely have gay sex.
*Greeks almost never have gay sex.
*Greeks never have gay sex.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:51 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

teflor the ranger wrote:You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


I never said I didn't. You are only refuting points you claim I made now. Another GOP trick from this election.


You called me an Asshole. There's no need for the quote. Point Refuted.


I never, ever, anywhere claimed that I didn't call you an asshole. Therefore nothing has been refuted, and you STILL haven't refuted the claim I DID make which is that you were being offensive.

Sarvis wrote:I claimed you were being offensive by starting every post with "bullshit."

You have not refuted that, and you cannot refute that because you did so.


That's not a point, it's a fact. I called bullshit on what was bullshit. Your point is Invalidated.


Bullshit. You claimed bullshit on almost every post for over a page, and backed up your claim with absolutely nothing. Not to mention which, even if you were correct it is <i>still offensive</i>, which is what I am accusing you of. Point NOT invalidated.

Sarvis wrote:But I'll await your next accusation of slander with baited breath!


No, no, no you're coming back into the realm of truth. Good Sarvis.


You _would_ miss sarcasm.

Sarvis wrote:You claimed you were not here for a four letter word contest, after engaging in a page and a half worth of starting every post with "bullshit." That you have NOW started answering questions does not disprove that you engaged in a four-letter word offensive for so long.


It's not a contest. I was calling out bullshit points made as bullshit. You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


Yes, I DID call you an asshole. What does that refute actually? That you were swearing a lot then accusing others of starting a swearing contest?

Sorry, had you not started all your replies with bullshit I wouldn't have started swearing either.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Ok. I'll go for the entire sentance.

"While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman)."

Point Refuted.


Really? So you leave off the first half of the quote again and that somehow refutes my point that you left off half the quote in order to misrepresent what you said in a more genial and less incorrect manner?

That's interesting logic!


I've left off nothing. You left off most of the post, as well as what it is replying to. Needless to say, the whole statement was made in truth, and you cannot refute what I have actually said. The meaning in this sentance does not change in the context of what it was originally stated with. Your point is thus rebuked AGAIN. Bullshit shoveled.


Listen, your reply boiled down to:

1) A claim that the original claim was Bullshit
2) Two unrelated points to support your claim if it being bullshit.

You are now trying to completely disregard 1) and focus only on 2).

Yes, Bullshit shoveled indeed...


Sarvis wrote:The completely unproven and uncited claim that there was mass rape and prostitution in Greece? Or the claim that Greeks mostly engaged in straight sex despite preferring gay sex?


This is slander. I did not use the word mass. I did not claim that the greeks were mostly engaged in straight sex. I did not claim that the greeks preferred gay sex. Furthermore, it's ignorant and irrepsonsible bullshit.


First of all you can't have ignorant bullshit. Bullshit is deceit, from the definition you so helpfully posted, and you can't be deceitfull if you are actually unaware of something.

More importantly, what words you use has little to do with what you said. That's why we have a thesaurus, because you can say one thing many ways.


I'm not going to get into an argument of semantics and half-meanings with you though, since you are only proving that you can say something and then later claim you said something entirely different. You claimed it was bullshit to say greeks mostly had gay sex, and you agreed with me that greeks admired gay sex and now you are saying you didn't say either because I stated it in a slightly different way.


All Points Refuted. All bullshit shoveled. Return to regularly scheduled activities.


Yes, you ARE shoveling a lot of bullshit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:56 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Rer says greeks almost NEVER have straight sex.

You claim that is bullshit.

which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


B U L L S H I T (pardon the ironic placement)
n.
1) Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2) Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3) Insolent talk or behavior.

Apprantly, you have a different definition of the word 'bullshit'.

Bullshit != Opposite Statement is True.


It does mean the given statement is untrue. In this matter there are few other choices. One could say none, except if yo uwanted to claim the greeks didn't have sex at all I guess.



Here's a thought:

A responsible argument against rer's claim might have stated what was wrong with it, what the truth was and backed it up with some citations? Instead you just took the 4th grade path and called it bullshit.

I thought you were the one arguing FOR responsible debate?


Firstly, evidence discussing ancient societys hve scant evidence at best.

Secondly, look. Let me enlighten you. There are things called degrees:

(*'ed remarks are bullshit)

*Greeks never have straight sex.
*Greeks almost never have straight sex.
Greeks very rarely have straight sex.
Greeks rarely have straight sex.
Greeks do not often have straight sex.
Greeks have as much straight sex as gay sex.
Greeks have just slightly more straight sex.
Greeks have a fair amount of straight sex.
Greeks have straight sex significantly more often than gay sex.
Greeks very rarely have gay sex.
*Greeks almost never have gay sex.
*Greeks never have gay sex.


So what you are saying is that this entire page could have been averted if you had engaged in honest debate and said the actual truth, which is apparently somewhere between "Greeks very rarely have straight sex" and "Greeks very rarely have gay sex" rather than just being offensive and calling bullshit on everyone's arguments?

AMAZING!

See how it doesn't foment honest debate, which you claim to be advocating, if you act like a four year old who just learned how to swear?

If you want honest debate, then engage in honest debate.

You reap what you sow.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:59 am

Sarvis wrote:So what you are saying is that this entire page could have been averted if you had engaged in honest debate and said the actual truth, which is apparently somewhere between "Greeks very rarely have straight sex" and "Greeks very rarely have gay sex" rather than just being offensive and calling bullshit on everyone's arguments?

AMAZING!

See how it doesn't foment honest debate, which you claim to be advocating, if you act like a four year old who just learned how to swear?

If you want honest debate, then engage in honest debate.

You reap what you sow.


I'm not responsible for your Ignorance. However, I have fought it honestly and explained everything to you. I am but an oath bound public servant.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:00 am

moritheil wrote:Kifle:

You are supposed to hold up to your own standards in this debate. You are not. No amount of complaining to me about how "hardchore Christians" don't follow the rules that Liberals would like them to follow, and it's therefore terribly inconvenient for you to follow those rules, is going to help your cause.


Now, for the details:

I listed the Christians not following Liberal rules as a concession to your side, to show that I was being fair. To be fair to them, I had to list Liberals as not following their standards. This should be pretty easy to follow. The meat of the matter is that neither side in this discussion is acting how the other would want them to, but Liberals aren't acting how they themselves would want people to act.

I have attacked somebody when I have been attacked or I saw them attack another person.


Therein lies the problem. Is this about attacking or is this about discussing some issues?

Regarding all your other random arguments about Christianity, they're pretty far out, but whether or not you're accurate on them, (and if you want to discuss some, you know how to contact me on the side) they have no bearing on this debate. This isn't a thread on Christianity. I'm only interested in the internal consistency of each side saying things about homosexual marriage (or same sex unions, or whatever terms you prefer). I don't care if, in your mind, Christians are justified in believing in their deity. It quite simply isn't an issue regarding the fairness of the debate.

Do you realize how absurd your last answer looks? I'm pointing out the folly of attacking someone based on their religious beliefs, or attacking a religion, and you respond by attacking the religion some more.

Christians are justified by their own standards in speaking their minds on homosexuality. Liberals are not justified by their own standard in attacking a religion or attacking people for holding specific religious beliefs. None of your attempting to muddy the waters by adding additional, extraneous issues changes that.


Unfortunately, mori, you are drasticly wrong here. When thinking of things in terms of consistancy, you have to look at the large picture and not just the small. At large, the argument against homosexuality based on the Christian religion is inherantly contradictory, and that is all that I'm pointing out. You can attempt to slander my points by saying they are far out and random, or whatever it is you like to call them, they are still factual in the sense that they are in the Bible (in the same book as the damnation of homosexuality), they are not random by any means (I have used the same ones consistantly), and you have to attack the integrity of the argument (if the argument is based on religion, you must attack the validity of the argument based upon that religion or based on logic...and since religion is not logical, we must attack it based on its own merits) to show that yours is the better solution. This is how a debate works, like it or not.

Again, I'm not saying that Christians are not justified in speaking their minds, I'm only stating that creating a law based upon religious doctrine that supports segregation and discrimination is just plain bigotry. If I didn't want to them to say their side of the argument (which would be counter-productive if your end goal is to attack the validity of their argument, i.e. debate) I would simply chose to follow the teflor tactic of claiming "Bullshit" every two seconds.

What I am attempting to do, regardless of how you precieve what I'm doing, is promote fairness on both sides of the table. I have said in past posts that I'm not against the Christians keeping "marriage" as a religious insititution, in fact, I would find it rather silly to infringe upon this. However, I am only saying that, if the government wishes to acknowledge this union by giving benefits and setting up legislature around said union, there should also be one in place for those who are bared from forming such a union. I stated this in one of my first, if not my first, posts in this thread.

Mori, again, I respect you greatly, but I feel as though you have only read the posts in which I had lowered myself to degrading remarks and personal attacks. I feel as though most, if not all, of my arguments have been consistant and that I have used well-tested debate tactics. Just because one argues another's point, does not mean that they are not listening to or not allowing the other to speak their point. It also does not mean that I feel they are not entitled to their own point of view. What it does mean is that I do not feel their point of view should be forced upon others when it is strictly religious while this country adheres to a freedom of religion. They can live the way they want to, and I will respect every bit of that, but I have not, nor will I ever, allow others to dictate my life, my family's lives, or my friend's lives based upon a religion I do not put stock into.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:23 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:It;s funny how you can claim things wihtout actually stating them directly so you can later claim you didn't say it!

teflor the ranger wrote:You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


I never said I didn't. You are only refuting points you claim I made now. Another GOP trick from this election.


You called me an Asshole. There's no need for the quote. Point Refuted.


I never, ever, anywhere claimed that I didn't call you an asshole. Therefore nothing has been refuted, and you STILL haven't refuted the claim I DID make which is that you were being offensive.

Sarvis wrote:I claimed you were being offensive by starting every post with "bullshit."

You have not refuted that, and you cannot refute that because you did so.


That's not a point, it's a fact. I called bullshit on what was bullshit. Your point is Invalidated.


Bullshit. You claimed bullshit on almost every post for over a page, and backed up your claim with absolutely nothing. Not to mention which, even if you were correct it is <i>still offensive</i>, which is what I am accusing you of. Point NOT invalidated.

Sarvis wrote:But I'll await your next accusation of slander with baited breath!


No, no, no you're coming back into the realm of truth. Good Sarvis.


You _would_ miss sarcasm.

Sarvis wrote:You claimed you were not here for a four letter word contest, after engaging in a page and a half worth of starting every post with "bullshit." That you have NOW started answering questions does not disprove that you engaged in a four-letter word offensive for so long.


It's not a contest. I was calling out bullshit points made as bullshit. You called me an asshole. Point Refuted.


Yes, I DID call you an asshole. What does that refute actually? That you were swearing a lot then accusing others of starting a swearing contest?

Sorry, had you not started all your replies with bullshit I wouldn't have started swearing either.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Ok. I'll go for the entire sentance.

"While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman)."

Point Refuted.


Really? So you leave off the first half of the quote again and that somehow refutes my point that you left off half the quote in order to misrepresent what you said in a more genial and less incorrect manner?

That's interesting logic!


I've left off nothing. You left off most of the post, as well as what it is replying to. Needless to say, the whole statement was made in truth, and you cannot refute what I have actually said. The meaning in this sentance does not change in the context of what it was originally stated with. Your point is thus rebuked AGAIN. Bullshit shoveled.


Listen, your reply boiled down to:

1) A claim that the original claim was Bullshit
2) Two unrelated points to support your claim if it being bullshit.

You are now trying to completely disregard 1) and focus only on 2).

Yes, Bullshit shoveled indeed...


Sarvis wrote:The completely unproven and uncited claim that there was mass rape and prostitution in Greece? Or the claim that Greeks mostly engaged in straight sex despite preferring gay sex?


This is slander. I did not use the word mass. I did not claim that the greeks were mostly engaged in straight sex. I did not claim that the greeks preferred gay sex. Furthermore, it's ignorant and irrepsonsible bullshit.


First of all you can't have ignorant bullshit. Bullshit is deceit, from the definition you so helpfully posted, and you can't be deceitfull if you are actually unaware of something.

More importantly, what words you use has little to do with what you said. That's why we have a thesaurus, because you can say one thing many ways.


I'm not going to get into an argument of semantics and half-meanings with you though, since you are only proving that you can say something and then later claim you said something entirely different. You claimed it was bullshit to say greeks mostly had gay sex, and you agreed with me that greeks admired gay sex and now you are saying you didn't say either because I stated it in a slightly different way.


All Points Refuted. All bullshit shoveled. Return to regularly scheduled activities.


Yes, you ARE shoveling a lot of bullshit.


Heh. You're full of it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:31 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:So what you are saying is that this entire page could have been averted if you had engaged in honest debate and said the actual truth, which is apparently somewhere between "Greeks very rarely have straight sex" and "Greeks very rarely have gay sex" rather than just being offensive and calling bullshit on everyone's arguments?

AMAZING!

See how it doesn't foment honest debate, which you claim to be advocating, if you act like a four year old who just learned how to swear?

If you want honest debate, then engage in honest debate.

You reap what you sow.


I'm not responsible for your Ignorance. However, I have fought it honestly and explained everything to you. I am but an oath bound public servant.


What a cop out.

You are doing everything you accuse liberals of, and then cop out by saying I'm ignorant. You fought nothing honestly, you only spewed vitriol and insults while putting forth "arguments" that do nothing to dispute the original claims.

You've explained nothing, put forth nothing useful and fought only the straw men you put forht.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:33 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Heh. You're full of it.


This is what you consider fighting honestly and explaining everything?

What could we expect from someone oath bound to Bush I guess...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:43 am

Kifle wrote:Unfortunately, mori, you are drasticly wrong here. When thinking of things in terms of consistancy, you have to look at the large picture and not just the small.


The large picture that I am aware of is the overall commitment of liberals to the rights of people to express themselves in accord with their beliefs.

As I understand it, homosexual marriage is a particular issue that happens to fall within that category, and that is why liberals are concerned with it at all. I understand that you seem to think that the large issue is itself homosexual marriage, and that respecting religious expression is a smaller concern, to be shunted aside for the sake of what you feel is the larger. You are, of course, welcome to your own beliefs.


What I am attempting to do, regardless of how you precieve what I'm doing, is promote fairness on both sides of the table. I have said in past posts that I'm not against the Christians keeping "marriage" as a religious insititution, in fact, I would find it rather silly to infringe upon this. However, I am only saying that, if the government wishes to acknowledge this union by giving benefits and setting up legislature around said union, there should also be one in place for those who are bared from forming such a union. I stated this in one of my first, if not my first, posts in this thread.

Mori, again, I respect you greatly, but I feel as though you have only read the posts in which I had lowered myself to degrading remarks and personal attacks.


It is indeed unfortunate that this is so.

I feel as though most, if not all, of my arguments have been consistant and that I have used well-tested debate tactics. Just because one argues another's point, does not mean that they are not listening to or not allowing the other to speak their point. It also does not mean that I feel they are not entitled to their own point of view. What it does mean is that I do not feel their point of view should be forced upon others when it is strictly religious while this country adheres to a freedom of religion. They can live the way they want to, and I will respect every bit of that, but I have not, nor will I ever, allow others to dictate my life, my family's lives, or my friend's lives based upon a religion I do not put stock into.


I rejoice at seeing civility.

My work here is done.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:24 am

moritheil wrote:
Kifle wrote:Unfortunately, mori, you are drasticly wrong here. When thinking of things in terms of consistancy, you have to look at the large picture and not just the small.


The large picture that I am aware of is the overall commitment of liberals to the rights of people to express themselves in accord with their beliefs.

As I understand it, homosexual marriage is a particular issue that happens to fall within that category, and that is why liberals are concerned with it at all. I understand that you seem to think that the large issue is itself homosexual marriage, and that respecting religious expression is a smaller concern, to be shunted aside for the sake of what you feel is the larger. You are, of course, welcome to your own beliefs.


I never said that respecting religious expression was a small concern. That is just as much a right as anything else in this country and I'm damn proud that we have that right. Like I have attempted to articulate in the past, but have obviously failed to do properly, I feel in no way that one should be denied their right of expression given to them by our first amendment. I welcome anybody to tell me what they think at any time. I will never take that away from anybody. However, conversly speaking my mind, whether relative to their point of view or not, should also be given the same weight. Also, if you enter a debate that deals heavily with your personal convictions and beliefs, you must also expect to have those beliefs and convictions put under heavy scrutiny. This is the nature of debate. Again, just because I argue your beliefs does not mean I am attempting to take away your right to express those beliefs. Also, just because I state that I do not agree, doesn't mean that I am attempting to take away your freedom of expression; it only means that I have found a flaw in your opinion and am attempting to show it to you in hopes that you will see it as well...that is all. If, for some reason, somebody told me the sky was green, when all evidence points to it being blue, I will say it is blue and give my facts and evidence. If they will not bend, I can either assume that they are color blind or being stubborn. (Of course, you can try to argue that the sky is not blue (naturally), but it would have to be a very weak argument based on illogical statements and misused fact) Nowhere in that example am I doing anything wrong.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:29 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Heh. You're full of it.


This is what you consider fighting honestly and explaining everything?

What could we expect from someone oath bound to Bush I guess...


Ahem:

Sarvis wrote:You need different licenses for different vehicles because they take different skills to drive AND anyone driving one without those skills becomes a danger to others.


You Were Wrong
(Commercial licenses cover just about all types of vehicles.)

Sarvis wrote:Again, however, not everyone accepts that the "accepted" forms of discrimination are actually a good thing.


You Were Wrong
(We put criminals in jail, and we keep child molesters away from day care centers.)

Sarvis wrote:Well guess what, conservatives aren't worth listening to either.


You Were Wrong
(They won over the general populace and took the elections in a clean sweep. The presidency, the house, and the senate. That's REAL ULTIMATE POWER.)

Sarvis wrote:He was still right about the Greeks...


You Were Wrong
(He said "sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex" which if true Greek society wouldn't have had the problems of the rape and prostitution of women)

Sarvis wrote:In previous posts you have advanced what seems to be an argument stating that bigotry is fine and good simply because the "other side" hasn't presented a convincing argument yet.


You Were Wrong
(Everyone I've spoken to following the thread seems to realize that I'm against Bigotry. Particuarly the kind you espouse.)

Sarvis wrote:Granted there are regional differences, so as always when someone says "all" of something they are automatically wrong. All three of us are currently guilty of that with this issue.


You Were Wrong
(I never said anything of the sort. I merely indicated that there was that kind of problem in Greek society.)

Sarvis wrote:Well, you were talking about all of Greece then and YOU ARE WRONG.


You Were Wrong
(Notice the repetitive pattern of false statements. Indicating that ancient Greek society had certain problems, does not speak of all of ancient Greece. Much in the way that violent crime would be a problem in American society, yet not all regions have this problem.)

Sarvis wrote:For all your talk of proper arguments, it seems as though your point here is simply that liberals are not worth listening to.


You Were Wrong
(Actually, I'm slightly liberal on this subject, seeing as how I do not oppose gay marriage. Furthermore, I have even argued for gay marriage in this thread. Certainly, I think that I am worth listening to.)

Sarvis wrote:Look, you said it was pure bullshit to say Greeks admired homosexuality.


You Were Wrong
(I specifically refuted "6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex.")

Sarvis wrote:So go on with your current tactic of calling every argument for gay marraige bullshit, while trying to appear so damn morally superior, which you are accusing liberals of by the way, by claiming to argue responsibly. Good job. Asshat.


You Were Wrong
(I never called my own arguments for gay marriage into question. "Good job. Asshat.")

Sarvis wrote:Now you are claiming that you argued for gay marriage when two posts ago yo usaid you maintained no position on it at all!


You Were Wrong
(I claimed I had made arguments for gay marriage, I did not claim to support gay marriage.)

Sarvis wrote:You are trolling, and blatantly at that. You don't care about actual debate, you just want to piss everyone off and you're doing a damn good job of it too.


You Were Wrong
(I've spoken to some outside observers and they seem to believe that you're the one trolling. Furthermore, my posts have been reviewed and they remain on the thread which remains open.)

Sarvis wrote:You are wrong because you said Greece, not some regions of Greece.


You Were Wrong
(I had said ancient Greek society, or perhaps just Greek society, not Greece. A society gives no particular reference to it's circumferance or domain, but rather the problem exists. It can be a sepecific regional problem or a fully distributed one, the discernment is not made. You are again making bullshit up and stuffing it in my mouth. It's slander.)

Sarvis wrote:I said Rer was right about Greeks and homosexuality.


You Were Wrong
(We've already spoken about degrees. Something you don't seem to understand.)

Sarvis wrote:IF yo uare really trying to shut down the slander and ignorance, why are you engaging in such slanderous tactics?


You Were Wrong
(I've not made up anything, or told other people what you thought, or what you claimed. Most often I quote you directly.)

Sarvis wrote:1) A claim that the original claim was Bullshit
2) Two unrelated points to support your claim if it being bullshit.
You are now trying to completely disregard 1) and focus only on 2).


You Were Wrong
(I stand by my claim, I have not refuted it. This was in relation to 'fact' number 6, which has been shown to be false.)


Sarvis wrote:So you are now claiming the the Greeks almost ALWAYS engaged in a form of sex which they did not admire?


You Were Wrong
(No. I'm claimed that Rer was incorrect.)

Sarvis wrote:which means you think Greeks almost ALWAYS have straight sex.


You Were Wrong
(We've been over this.)

Sarvis wrote:You've explained nothing, put forth nothing useful and fought only the straw men you put forht.


You Were Wrong
(I explained degrees pretty well.)

Sarvis wrote:So what you are saying is that this entire page could have been averted if you had engaged in honest debate and said the actual truth, which is apparently somewhere between "Greeks very rarely have straight sex" and "Greeks very rarely have gay sex" rather than just being offensive and calling bullshit on everyone's arguments?


You Were Wrong
(No, what I was saying is that this entire page could have been averted if you understood the fact that only a two dimensional universe could contain only things with two or fewer sides.)

Sarvis wrote:Stop learning how to argue from the GOP playbook, it is the fast track to irresponsible debate.


You Were Wrong
(Actually, I wrote my own playbook in the ten weeks I was active in my high school debate club way back when. Also, the "they were wrong" tactic of argumentation was used by Zell Miller, a nearly life-time Democrat.)

Sarvis wrote:Bullshit is deceit


You Were Wrong
(I had posted the definition of Bullshit. Read it again. You have this habit of taking just exactly what you want to see in something and then presenting it as a fact. This is the kind of irresponsible bullshit I have been speaking about.)

Sarvis wrote:You are doing everything you accuse liberals of, and then cop out by saying I'm ignorant.


You are Obviously Wrong
(I think enough has been said. I've not copped out, but you continue to make false statements, slander me, and make false claims and accusasions from your own ignorant, irresponsible interpretations of what it is I am saying. I've posted at length in the noble spirit in the fight against Ignorance.)

There is one more thing which I MUST slam you for.
Sarvis wrote:What could we expect from someone oath bound to Bush I guess...


This is by far the most ignorant slanderous bullshit that I have EVER heard. You are a moron, your fundamental LACK OF ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER of how this nation works is astounding. You DISGRACE ALL AMERICANS WHOM LOVE THEIR COUNTRY OR HAVE EVER SERVED. MILLIONS of Volunteers Gave the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE TO UPHOLD THAT OATH WHICH YOU MOCK. You disgust me.

Do yourself a favor and return to the topic.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:38 am

guys calm down :)

its some text

dont let it rule your world

other people have opinions

respect them

thanks please drive thru

(anyone else notice its the straight guys who are getting all pissy?)
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:57 pm

It's time for a closing argument.

The last time this country dictated a forced change upon it's people was when it tried to end segregation and racism.

As we can see, while the laws are there, the segregation still exists, plain as can be across city lines and in our public schools.

As for racism, we need only watch the news, or search for racial profiling, white supremacy, or Zionists.

America is a nation of the people. In order to bring about real change in America, we must change the hearts of her citizens. Anything worth doing is worth doing the right way, even if it appears that nothing has changed - yet.

We cannot attack religion, as our country is founded upon religion. In God we Trust, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights granted by their Creator. On the subject of segregation and racism, indeed, the subject of discrimination, the last people to attack religion were the white supremacists who bombed churches.

We cannot dismiss discrimination. Discrimination is not an evil, but the recognition as a fact of life. Indeed we discriminate black and hispanic students from other races, giving them extra federal educational assistance. Indeed we discriminate criminals from other citizens, placing them in jail or administering other punishments.

We should not claim to be open-minded, and yet offer nothing for the open mind. Clearly seperate the issues so that they may be seen in their own light.

We must acknowledge that man and woman are seperate. Biological differences between the two are stark, finding no middle ground between them. It is necessary to have one of each in order to continue the human race.

There will always be a defining point for the union between a man and a woman.

Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

The fact is that a union between a man and a man is not the same thing as a man and a woman. The two types of union will never be equal, as they are fundamentally different. Just as black will never be white. They are seperate by fact and no amount of legislation will change this.

Finally, if you feel there should be no differences between the union of a man and a woman, and the union of a man and a man / woman and a woman, you need to stop treating it as if there was a difference. Convince people, don't attack them. You must show them that there is no difference.
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:45 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:It's time for a closing argument.


Yeah... Right...

teflor the ranger wrote:The last time this country dictated a forced change upon it's people was when it tried to end segregation and racism.

As we can see, while the laws are there, the segregation still exists, plain as can be across city lines and in our public schools.

As for racism, we need only watch the news, or search for racial profiling, white supremacy, or Zionists.

America is a nation of the people. In order to bring about real change in America, we must change the hearts of her citizens. Anything worth doing is worth doing the right way, even if it appears that nothing has changed - yet.


Those laws are part of something called progress (The opposite of congress? *jokes*) and the thing about progress is that it can be sudden or it can take a long time. I live in a region of Canada where if you added up all of the ethnic groups, I would be in the minority. Racism most likely still exists here, but it isn't visible because nobody will tolerate it.

teflor the ranger wrote:We cannot attack religion, as our country is founded upon religion. In God we Trust, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights granted by their Creator. On the subject of segregation and racism, indeed, the subject of discrimination, the last people to attack religion were the white supremacists who bombed churches.

We cannot dismiss discrimination. Discrimination is not an evil, but the recognition as a fact of life. Indeed we discriminate black and hispanic students from other races, giving them extra federal educational assistance. Indeed we discriminate criminals from other citizens, placing them in jail or administering other punishments.


First of all, you need to understand that regardless of being "One nation under God" a nation has to protect the rights of its citizens regardless of race, creed, sex and sexual preference. That all men and women are fundementally the same, not because it is a noble sentiment, but because it is so.

teflor the ranger wrote:We should not claim to be open-minded, and yet offer nothing for the open mind. Clearly seperate the issues so that they may be seen in their own light.

We must acknowledge that man and woman are seperate. Biological differences between the two are stark, finding no middle ground between them. It is necessary to have one of each in order to continue the human race.


I understand what you are saying about physiological differences between men and women. However, just because two women or two men cannot have children (the former pair can with help) does not mean that such a pair cannot sate the emotional needs of thier partner in a healthy relationship.

teflor the ranger wrote:There will always be a defining point for the union between a man and a woman.

Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

The fact is that a union between a man and a man is not the same thing as a man and a woman. The two types of union will never be equal, as they are fundamentally different.


Marriage may be forever between a man and a women simply because it is a religious institution that exists in most religions, but the statement that marriage and a civil union between two men or women will never be equal simply because of biological differences is ignorant at best. Should a homosexual couple want to spend thier lives together they should enjoy the same leagal rights and protections as any heterosexual married couple under the law.

teflor the ranger wrote:Just as black will never be white. They are seperate by fact and no amount of legislation will change this.


Prove to me that the mind of any man is wholely different from any other mans mind solely because of the colour of his skin. The fact that you could say such a thing simply baffles me, perhaps you should rethink or reword that statement...

teflor the ranger wrote:Finally, if you feel there should be no differences between the union of a man and a woman, and the union of a man and a man / woman and a woman, you need to stop treating it as if there was a difference. Convince people, don't attack them. You must show them that there is no difference.


Psst... you need to understand that the argument is not for the union of two men or two women, the arguement that I and many others make is for the union of any two people to be equal under the law.

Thanks for comin' out.
Tuga
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Postby Tuga » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:54 pm

Just as black will never be white


Hmmmm Michael Jackson will refute this fact of yours!

Cheers
Tuga the Sunless Troll
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:14 pm

Iaiken Toransier wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Just as black will never be white. They are seperate by fact and no amount of legislation will change this.


Prove to me that the mind of any man is wholely different from any other mans mind solely because of the colour of his skin. The fact that you could say such a thing simply baffles me, perhaps you should rethink or reword that statement...


I think Teflor was talking about shading, rather than race.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:12 pm

Teflor, you are being an asshole.

It is RUDE to simply sit there and say someone is wrong with some glib explanation, and does nothing to advance your supposed goal of fomenting good honest debate. It only makes those you speak to want to lash out at you like I am.

In short: You are wrong.

By the way, the existance of prostitution and/or rape in greek society does NOTHING to disprove the statement that Greeks almost never had sex with women for pleasure.

First of all, he said almost which means it may have happened at some points in time such as during rape or prostitution. In fact, rape and prostition are almost always frowned upon by societies at large so in general are only acts engaged in by a few "unsavory" individuals. Therefore citing the existance of those acts does nothing to discount the claim. Not to mention that itn is currently thought that rape has little to do with pleasure, and is instead an act of control and power.



Please come back when you are willing to have an actual discussion rather than just try to shut everyone down as you have been.


<b>Moritheil</b>

You talk about liberals shutting things down and not allowing proper discourse even though it is their supposed agenda. What about Teflor here? He's a conservative who's only replies to anyone's post is that it is bullshit or they were simply wrong.

It's not liberals or conservatives, it's the individuals.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:29 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:The last time this country dictated a forced change upon it's people was when it tried to end segregation and racism.

As we can see, while the laws are there, the segregation still exists, plain as can be across city lines and in our public schools.


Yet minorities have been given more and more rights and priviledges as the years pass. It is still in the works. God didn't create everything in existance in one day, did he? Why would you expect the human race to be able to do such a mighty task?

teflor the ranger wrote:America is a nation of the people. In order to bring about real change in America, we must change the hearts of her citizens. Anything worth doing is worth doing the right way, even if it appears that nothing has changed - yet.


What you propose here is impossible because there will always be an opposing force to any view. Given that this is a fact of life, and, if what I have you quoted as saying prior to this quote is true, you will never be able to bring REAL change. Real change, in your views, is an impossible feat to accomplish. Even if you where to sway the majority of the populace, you would still have that minority opposing it, and, since if there is any opposition, no matter how small (nazi's, zionists, white supremasists, etc.) the change is not real.

teflor the ranger wrote:We cannot attack religion, as our country is founded upon religion. In God we Trust, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights granted by their Creator. On the subject of segregation and racism, indeed, the subject of discrimination, the last people to attack religion were the white supremacists who bombed churches.


Saying you can not attack religion is a false statement. It is very easy to attack religion. While we have "In God We Trust" on our money of all places, we also have the freedom of religion. I believe I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I do not believe nor do I trust in any God. So, I can be a part of this country and not Trust in God. Since this is true, the usage of "In God We Trust" to support some claim that this country should follow a religion's morals is not only an opinion, but an opinion that is being forced upon everybody who does not follow or believe in God. Again, you can not use things such as "rights granted by their Creator" as a proper argument. This, in a debate of resoned discourse, is purely opinion as nobody knows who the creator is, if he/she exists at all. While it is fine that whomever says this believes there is a God, they also have to take into account that others do not. And, since this is true, they have to also take into account that rights do not necessarily have to be dictated by a God. Therefor, one could replace "god given rights" with "natural rights". The latter, however, since it does not rely on a creator, would suggest that rights should not follow religion.

Your last statement is misleading in the sense that that would be the last publicized incident that you recall. It was not the last by any means. It could also be the last large-scale incident, but I have known people to deface religious structures and verbally attack religion many times in my classes and with my peers. The statement is also irresponsible because it would give the impression that it is fact when it is not.

teflor the ranger wrote:We cannot dismiss discrimination. Discrimination is not an evil, but the recognition as a fact of life. Indeed we discriminate black and hispanic students from other races, giving them extra federal educational assistance. Indeed we discriminate criminals from other citizens, placing them in jail or administering other punishments.


Discrimination is not intrinsicly bad, no, but it is often instrumentally bad. While you offer only good forms of discrimination to highlight your point, you have ignored the bad forms of discrimination that would defeat your point. Discrimination against race is a bad form. Discrimination against gender is a bad form. Failing to allow women to vote at one time was a bad form of discrimination. As a whole discrimination against a group based upon nothing more than personal opinion is a bad form. Homosexuality would fall into this category, which is why many have argued that it is wrong. In all of your examples, the discrimination is there to help others while discriminating against homosexuals does the opposite. If we accept your examples as good forms of discrimination, and, since the discrimination of homosexuals does not fit into that group in anyway, we must also accept the fact that the discrimination which you speak of is entirely different and does not apply to that of homosexuals.

teflor the ranger wrote:We should not claim to be open-minded, and yet offer nothing for the open mind. Clearly seperate the issues so that they may be seen in their own light.


You are exactly right. You should not claim to be open-minded when you are not. However, this post you made is extremely closed-minded in the sense that you used words such as "can not". This offers no room for debate when there actually is room. You are offering your opinion as fact and nothing else. The reality is, your world view is entirely self-centered upon your own experiences and knowledge. It is entirely hypocritical for the pot to call the kettle black.

teflor the ranger wrote:We must acknowledge that man and woman are seperate. Biological differences between the two are stark, finding no middle ground between them. It is necessary to have one of each in order to continue the human race.


How can you say you have an open-minded view when you say there is no middle ground? I can find many many similarities between a man and a women. Specifically dealing with sexuality, a man and a women both have a g-spot. For the women it is located around 2-2.5 inches within the top portion of the vaginal canal -- usually off center. In the male it is located on the prostate which is roughly 1-2 inches inside the rectum housed right on the perennium. The clitorus is made of virutally the same cells as the scrotum. The male and female both have two major points in which they can achieve orgasm -- the g-spot in both, the head of the penis in males, and the clitorus in females. Both sexes produce testosterone which is a major proponent of the sex drive.

Conversely, I can find many differences between an african-american and a caucasian male -- does that mean that one is human while the other is not?

As to your last statement, while it may be (I'm not exactly sure anymore) necessary for both sexes to keep the human race alive, this is changing fast. It would change faster if the funding for such programs wasn't debilitated by the government.

teflor the ranger wrote:Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.


I don't recall anybody really arguing this.

teflor the ranger wrote:The fact is that a union between a man and a man is not the same thing as a man and a woman.


The only difference is the sex of the parties involved. Everything is opinion and poor legislature. Beyond this, the statement can not be considered fact and has little to no baring on this argument.

teflor the ranger wrote:The two types of union will never be equal, as they are fundamentally different. Just as black will never be white. They are seperate by fact and no amount of legislation will change this.


Hispanics and caucasians are fundamentally different, but are both considered human. Just because there are differences in things does not mean that we should not also allow for similarities either. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals should be allowed to form a religions union and call it marriage. We are arguing that homosexuals should be able to have a civil union, which is different from a marriage, but also carry the same benefits that a marriage does from the government. Just as in all walks of life and every example you will ever put forth, they have differences, but they also have similarities. Saying you can't classify one thing with another based upon a few differences is poor logic and goes against every form of science. What would happen is that marriage and civil union would fall under the same category while keeping its differences (religion). Think of it this way. The category is unions. Unions get this and that benefit. Marriage and civil union are both classified as a union and therefor keep their difference while both benefiting from what the term union offers.

teflor the ranger wrote:Finally, if you feel there should be no differences between the union of a man and a woman, and the union of a man and a man / woman and a woman, you need to stop treating it as if there was a difference. Convince people, don't attack them. You must show them that there is no difference.


Again, nobody said there shouldn't be a difference. There should be a difference, but they should also carry the same benefits. You can do both.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:19 pm

Wow, everyone getting riled up!

I think most rational folks are agreeing to some equal name/institution for gay folks that has all the legal/governmental benefits of marriage for straight folks. Also, it should be clear that they both would have different names. Civil union seems to be acceptable.

The following is a bit humorous but I hope enlightning.

Most people do not want to change the meaning of what marriage is, and here's why. When we start mucking around with meanings, it can be a slippery slope. If 2 men or 2 women can be married, where can that lead us? Well, let's say you are a bi-sexual. You are into women and men both! Why should a bi-sexual only be able to pick a man or a woman to marry? Shouldn't they be able to marry both of the sexes they are attracted to? Seems logical to me and I hope folks are not so intolerant to demand that marry be only between 2 people. Hell, how about the bigotry against mormons who want to have more than 1 wife or 1 husband? Where are their civil rights? By god, it is unfair! Who about arabics who have a history of multiple wives/harems? Shouldn't arabic folks be allowed to have more than one spouse? Why do you have to be 18 to get married??? In some states, your parents can sign for you and allow you to marry at 16 or even 15! Why can't someone get married at 16 if they want no matter what? Hell, if we're gonna allow 16, why not 12 years? Does a year or two really make you any more mature?

I hope the following shows my thinking. This is one reason I'm a conservative because I don't just look at the current arguement and the consequences of the solutions. It is also important to say where will that take us later.

By the way, most minorities are offended when you compare their struggles to the homosexual situation. Race is something which is very apparent as is your gender. This is why they are protected and there is no choice involved with being a particular sex or race. With homosexuals, it is actions which define them, not simply their appearance. This is why the military has the policy of "don't ask, don't tell". If you don't tell anyone your gay, they wouldn't know. Most people don't believe that gays are a legitimate minority
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:53 pm

1) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope">Slippery Slope</a> can be a logical fallacy unless you back up the argument with WHY those things will follow from the original statement.

2) All of your examples are taken from other cultures, where they are considered perfectly acceptable. So there is arguably nothing wrong with them. Well, I dunno about marriage at 12... but I think there are some cultures where girls are forced to marry by the age of 13 or 14... too tired to look it up though.

But thank you for at least not being so absurd as to claim this will lead to people marrying goats and their pets!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Ambar wrote:
Viclor Voddyn wrote:Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.


yeah out of context and all ..

who has had a person to person talk with God lately?


Bush...



God is the same yesterday, today, & tomorrow. thats why you don't go changing the bible. the mormon church change their view of blacks and eventhough the change is good, it's really did a lot to discredit their "holy book".
Last edited by sok on Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vorkul Tigerclaw
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:55 pm

Postby Vorkul Tigerclaw » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:28 pm

Wow, this whole thread has taken a morbid and unproductive turn. Looks like conflicting egos trying to prove which one is smarter. And that, I must say, is Total Irresponsible Bullshit. (muahaha-sorry I had to.)

Marrying goats and other animals does seem absurd......but two guys marrying 10-20 years ago also seemed equally absurd....heh.

In any case, I think homosexuals will just have to settle for civil unions for a while. No amount of debating will change that.

Is this a good thing? I think so.....but thats just my own opinion from my irresponsible, prejudice, bigot, idiotic, and ignorant christian point of view.
Nuada GCC: 'what the heck is a khanjari'
Dudle GCC: 'it's a new player class'
Azerost GCC: 'Imagine for a second that they jammed Drizzt into a dagger'
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:48 pm

Amen Vorkul, let's lock this pig of a thread up!

As Kossuth would say, "Situation handled!"

PS Sarvis, you're reply that those things would be ok like a 13 or 14 year old girl getting married just proves you're are certainly the wrong person to discuss right and wrong. I doubt you'd have a clue as to right and wrong if it ran up and bit you on the ass. Just a personal opinion.

(wow, did you notice I didn't have to lower myself to saying ass or bullshit to disagree? There's a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:03 am

Imis9 wrote:Amen Vorkul, let's lock this pig of a thread up!

As Kossuth would say, "Situation handled!"

PS Sarvis, you're reply that those things would be ok like a 13 or 14 year old girl getting married just proves you're are certainly the wrong person to discuss right and wrong. I doubt you'd have a clue as to right and wrong if it ran up and bit you on the ass. Just a personal opinion.

(wow, did you notice I didn't have to lower myself to saying ass or bullshit to disagree? There's a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.)



I suppose you have actual reasoning to back up your claims that it is automatically wrong for a 13 year old to get married?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests