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. 29
  7. 30
  8. 31
  9. Page 32
  10. 33
  11. 34
  12. 35
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All
So I take it then, Dustin, that you have no evidence for your claims that I don't understand the common fallacies, nor do you have any evidence that I have "elastic" definitions, nor that I "quote" fallacies that I do not understand, for that matter.

Like mhaze, you're just a liar. A filthy scoundrel of a liar.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 19 August 2017 11:17:12 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 wites:
“You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you?”

Nah . .//

Gosh what a surprise. With you added to the tally, let's see, I make that 23 conservatives pushing for polygamy because mistakenly they think irrelevant arguments about unrelated topics constitute sound arguments against SSM, and 0 genuine polygamists that have come out in support.

Should Australia really introduce polygamy just to placate some tories who don't really want it? I dunno, sounds a bit mental to me.

With a background in the sciences, I think it is always important to examine the empirical data. SSM has now been legalised in numerous developed Western democracies which provide a good basis of comparison with Australia. Thus far:
a) None of them have legalised polygamy.
b) None of them have had a campaign to legalise polygamy.
c) Civilisation has failed to grind to a shuddering halt in all of them.
d) Life for straight people has gone just the same as before, with no alteration or disruption.
e) Life for gay people has had one minor change, which doesn't even effect the entirety of the already small minority they constitute.

With replication of results like that, I'm really not sure what you're so anxious about.

Still, it's a very cute three-headed monkey.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 20 August 2017 5:45:12 AM
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 wites:
[…] which provide a good basis of comparison with Australia. […]

So, it’s a good basis if we compare unrelated and irrelevant countries, but it’s a bad basis if we compare similar situations. Got it.

I’d have thought with a background in the sciences, critical thinking would be to the fore.
Apparently not. Who knew.
Offering up a scientific background while displaying zero academic interest; priceless.

I make that 23 activists (pick a number) pushing for SSM who, when confronted with that most basic logical argument, invariably fall at the first hurdle. They won’t engage.

For some obscure reason they avoid even considering the many nations that have practiced polygamy for centuries alongside all manner of religions as well as the more usual man/woman marriage. The only conclusion one can draw is that of wilful blindness presumably because it conflicts with their world view. Otherwise, they’d need to vigorously skirt accusations of bigotry.

Continued . . .
Posted by Dustin, Sunday, 20 August 2017 11:14:53 AM
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
. . . continued.

Evidently they think sophistic and often incoherent rhetoric like:

No one else is affected anyway, so you shouldn’t worry about it / shouldn’t get a say.
What will happen if SSM is legalised? - Zero.
It’s a basic human right; the UN etc.
It’s equality.
Gay couples can have children too.
Gay parents have no detrimental effect on the children’s welfare.
Survey shows 74% of Australians are in support.
The anti-gay marriage crowd is a dying breed. (pretty ironic when you think about it)
Every advanced civilisation on the planet has adopted SSM.
It’s the same as the 60's civil rights movement.
It’s the same as interracial marriage.
If you don’t like same sex marriage, don’t have one.
It’s none of your business.
Childless heterosexual marriages debunk all your arguments.
John Howard changed the Marriage Act with no consultation, so we can just change it back.
Parliament should pass the bill (even though they haven’t passed the last half dozen since the last one was rejected only a few years ago)
A plebiscite is a good idea.
A plebiscite is a bad idea.
A survey is a bad idea.
Alphabet people will face horrific hate, vilification and increased suicide and self harm instances from bigots if the public is allowed to discuss a plebiscite.
etc.
etc.

. . all pass for reasoned argument.
And yet, they want me to type reams of virtual paper defending traditional marriage while simultaneously failing to even remotely prosecute their case.
Posted by Dustin, Sunday, 20 August 2017 11:15:31 AM
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
Dear Dustin,

And what exactly are your arguments against same-sex marriage?

Have you succeeded in proving your case?

Or do you simply feel that your version of marriage is
self-evidently right and proper (and God-given as well).
That your version is the only "right" form and that any
change will herald the doom of the whole institution?

Please explain.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 20 August 2017 1:51:24 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
//if we compare unrelated and irrelevant countries//

If Britain is unrelated and irrelevant, why do we have their flag in the top right corner of our flag and their Queen's head on the back of our coins? I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to suggest that mother Britain is unrelated or irrelevant.

//while simultaneously failing to even remotely prosecute their case.//

Yeah, I was expecting it to be my turn after you had engaged with the argument at hand, since I was the last in the queue. Apparently nobody understands proper queuing etiquette these days. Sigh...

But instead you've just kept flogging a dead three-headed monkey. So it looks like I'll have to gird my loins and jump the queue (shudder).

It's about the moolah, mate. I don't like the money itself, but I like the books it can buy me. I have a background in science, but I work in hospitality these days. Gay weddings = gay wedding receptions = increased bookings = more money = increased books. Not many books, of course, because there aren't that many gays. But hey, any benefit, no matter how small, is better than no benefit at all.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Presumably you'll be shocked and appalled at my mercenary and cavalier attitude - trading off the future of Western civilisation for my own greed. Egads, what a cad. Please, won't somebody think of the children.

But the things is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince of gay marriage, usually because they don't make an effort to - you give them a free shot, and they usually either duck for cover or proffer three-headed monkeys. And honestly, it wouldn't take a huge downside, given that the potential benefit has already been established as minute. Just one little downside...

Should I resume my seat in the waiting room?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 20 August 2017 8:11:58 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. 29
  7. 30
  8. 31
  9. Page 32
  10. 33
  11. 34
  12. 35
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All

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