The Gay Thread

Quote: fleaswatter

While I do not fully agree with your position, I do understand it and where you are coming from.

Quote: Shrek

I'm with AZ.

Accusing a person of being a pedophile is one of the worst accusations you can make about someone. It's on par with calling somebody a rapist or a murderer. In my short time here, I haven't seen anyone else on this board make such an accusation about another member. Even in real life, I can't think of one instance when someone was falsely accused of being a pedophile, and they just brushed it off like it was no big deal.

Anyway, I'm going to do the same as AZ, and I won't discuss nor even allude to this topic anymore.

Quote: Shrek

I've always found it interesting that lesbians rarely molest young girls. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of pedophiles who molest young boys are gay guys. Someone should do a study on this to find out why, but in today's climate where "gay guys can do no wrong" I doubt it will ever happen.

Quote: Face

But speaking opinion as certainty is not going to be looked upon favorably going forward.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote:

he just keeps saying he supports abolishing marriage age limits.... I do not.

When did I say that? I said no such thing.

Quote: Shrek

Interesting how you've explained your position on this numerous times, yet there are a couple members who continue to ignore your explanation and claim that you want to abolish marriage age limits. And nobody has called them out for "suspected feigned ignorance" or "any other bulls#$% tactic to get their jabs in".

Oh well, it is what it is. Was just wondering if you noticed.
Anyway if you're not gonna worry about it, then neither am I.

Onward and upward! 👍

Quote: Dalex64

You didn't use "logic" in the same way. You removed the "between consenting adults" requirement of gay marriage, and THEN applied "people who love each other" to something else.

Then you go on and apply "people should be able to choose whatever they want" to a bunch of other situations, none of which are related to gay marriage.

Basically, you gave taken the arguments for gay marriage out of context and selectively apply those arguments, with out their context or conditions, to other things.

Quote: Dalex64

That's why I hardly ever respond to you on political issues.
Your arguments are a mess of opinion, denial, and omission.

Quote: AZDuffman

See, they are really upset because all I have done is use the same reasoning that the gay marriage supporters gave to legalize gay marriage. All of the sudden they decide we need to have "restrictions" on marriage. For years "that two people love each other" was all that supposedly mattered.

I also used their logic about abortion in the same way. "Her body, her choice!" Is what matters to them for abortion. For abortion she is somehow old enough to make a decision without her parents involved. Ditto for using birth control pills. Now all of a sudden she is not old enough.

No logic in their positions or arguments.

Quote:

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

Examples
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have) unrestricted access to intoxicants." It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants (this is also a slippery slope argument).

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, but I did use them exactly. There was no "consenting adult" part of gay marriage, just that "they love each other." In any case, libs are for teens being allowed to get birth control outside parental consent. Therefore, they must feel these teens are adult enough to make their own decisions.

It just shows how faulty the whole gay marriage argument was that the same people who favored it all of the sudden say "it does not apply here."

Limbaugh is so right that when you turn liberal's logic back on them they cannot handle it.