The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > ABC Surprise

ABC Surprise

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. Page 29
  10. 30
  11. 31
  12. 32
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All
//Well, there’s a waiting room just over there =>//

Well whilst we're waiting, do you mind if we entertain ourselves by taking turns guessing reasons? Cheers.

Is it coz they is bummers?

That seems a bit harsh on the lesbos, yeah? Coz they ain't bummers.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 18 August 2017 2:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

No, no. Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions. In fact it had a couple of assertions unsupported by any data to speak of.

Let me stipulate that we could probably find many texts that made these same assertions. The left have spent many years trying to downgrade the importance of the family as part of their efforts to subjugate it. The family is a power structure that stands in contra-opposition to the state and the left, at least the far left, have long sought to elevate one over t'other. The useful idiots are going along for the ride.

"Paramount? Perhaps. The most common form of family? Not necessarily."

A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments. Now you're reduced to silly semantic quibbles of paramount/common, or what equal really means. You're also reduced to linking to texts (https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf) that don't even provide tangential evidence for your assertions.

I consider my job done.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 18 August 2017 5:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis writes:
“ . . do you mind if we entertain ourselves by taking turns guessing reasons?”

Feel free.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Is it coz they is bummers?”

Nah . . I don’t think many people, perhaps apart those with a religious bent, care one way or t’other these days.
Truth be told, I reckon we’d find a goodly proportion of heterosexuals have indulged in a little tail gunnery from time to time.
Posted by Dustin, Friday, 18 August 2017 6:39:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it coz they can't have kids?

That seems a bit harsh on straight people, yeah? My sis can't have no kids 'coz her insides ain't quite right.

Should her marriage be annulled?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 18 August 2017 7:04:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haha. Nice try, mhaze.

<<Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions.>>

Firstly, no I didn't. That was with regards to something else:

“It does, however, spend four pages debunking the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock for civilisation and explains where the sociologist, George Murdoch (who first proposed this idea), went wrong.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

Would you like me to scan those pages, too?

That being said, page 169 continues discussing the nuclear family and supporting what I cited.

Secondly, since when did, ‘only one page’, mean the same as, “... nothing of the sort of what you claimed”?

Keep digging, mhaze.

<<In fact it had a couple of assertions unsupported by any data to speak of.>>

Oh, really? Do tell.

<<The left have spent many years trying to downgrade the importance of the family as part of their efforts to subjugate it.>>

So, now there's a conspiracy? When you resort to such conspiratorial thinking, you've lost any right to be taken seriously.

<<A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments.>>

Correct, and I still do. To any extent that is possible, at least.

<<Now you're reduced to silly semantic quibbles of paramount/common, or what equal really means.>>

Nope. Dustin unnecessarily dragged me into the one about ‘equal’ (and, as it turned out, he couldn't support his version of the definition), and there is nothing wrong with distinguishing between ‘common’ and ‘paramount’. Indeed, I think you were deliberately being loose with your language to afford yourself some wiggle room.

<<You're also reduced to linking to texts (https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf) that don't even provide tangential evidence for your assertions.>>

“Reduced”. That's adorable. No, was providing you with the best I thought I could from a book at the time (i.e. its online references)

<<I consider my job done.>>

Of course you do. Wouldn't want to dig yourself in any deeper now, would we?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 August 2017 7:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, mhaze, on second thoughts, this wasn’t quite right:

<<A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments.>>

It had nothing to do with seeing things impartially (although I was against the idea of marriage equality for the first half of my life, so…). It had more to do with the fact that I simply had not heard a rational argument against marriage equality (and still haven’t, mind you):

“Because I think I’ve heard and engaged in this debate enough now to determine that a valid argument against change is looking exceedingly unlikely.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226757)

“I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are inadequate …”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

You have a real problem with honesty, don’t you mhaze?

Once again, keep digging…
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 August 2017 9:28:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. Page 29
  10. 30
  11. 31
  12. 32
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy