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 > Article Comments > beyondblue and its heart-felt support for same-sex unions > Comments

beyondblue and its heart-felt support for same-sex unions : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 4/9/2015

If love defines marriage then we should have to register polygamous unions; polyandrous unions; endogamous (hippy commune) unions; arranged unions; bigamous unions; even incestuous unions, and others.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
" It would also create a legal fiction that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are the same, which is erroneous and absurd."

I would agree, but only if you admit that marriages between oldies (like yourself) and young people (who would be classified as tradiational marriages) are also different.

I would propose calling your marriage "gross-sex unions" or perhaps unfortunately for you "no-sex unions". We could make the laws to establish these unions at the same time as new names for mixed race unions, fatty unions 2nd-5th unions, bound-to-fail unions, probably-knocked up unions etc. These are obviously different to each other too, right?

On the other hand, people like you (lawyers) and the government could stop trying to make laws to regulate our personal relationships.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:00:44 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
John. I think we've ruled out bestialiy, poligmy, incest and underage sex.

So pack up the straw man arguments, all anyone is asking for is marriage equality before the law!

Surely even a knuckle dragging neotherandal would understand at least that much.

When it comes to bright lights yours must be barely a flicker; rather than a guide for others far more fair minded than you?

In any event it's just another rearguard action by I believe, a medieval fundamentalist,and of no consequence, given this issue will be decided by the people at the very next poll that counts!

Shorten's slogan will surely be, a vote for Labor will guarantee this matter, will be resolved by parliament within a hundred days of a Labor win. And necessarily, effectively in both houses, with green support!?

However a vote for the coalition sure to guarantee it won't!? But kicked down the road to a referendum that could easily ask do you support homosexual love?

Make no mistake the fundamentalists/bigots among us are already busy busy trying to find a form of words that will just like the republican referendum; kill it dead in the water, as so ably demonstrated by you?

Only control freaks who think they're above the law, will believe that the right of the people to decide this matter by popular vote should be resisted to the last breath!

All we can legitimately ask for is that those who engage in homosexual sex always use a condom, so they don't flout the rights of others!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:29:35 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
Stezza,

It’s the inventors of same-sex marriage that want the government “to make laws to regulate [their] personal relationships”. There are all sorts of relationships in society – mother-son, father-daughter, grandfather-grandson, aunt-niece, cousin-cousin, friend-friend. They don’t all have to be called marriage to mean something.

Rhrosty,

Who’s “we” and what else have they ruled out and under what authority?

“Marriage equality” is an emotive slogan that makes as much sense as circle equality to describe redefining squares as circles.

As I have explained before, same-sex marriage is just as likely to be created by a plebiscite as a Labor victory because a plebiscite, rather than a constitutional referendum, means that the Abbott government does not really want to stop the creation of same-sex marriage but does want to avoid responsibility for doing so. Even if plebiscite resulted in a defeat for the same-sex marriage advocates, they would simply claim it was rigged, as you are doing in advance.

The only course of action that makes sense is a constitutional referendum to reverse the High Court’s redefinition of “marriage” in Section 51,and the only chance such a referendum would have of success would be if it also granted the federal parliament the power to legislate on same-sex unions.

Whether we have a plebiscite or a constitutional referendum, we will have to endure well-funded emotional drivel and name-calling from the bandwagon, but at least with the latter will we get a decision one way or the other and 20 years of peace.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:51:50 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
Union between people of the same sex that flout the laws of nature by engaging in unnatural sexual acts will never be marriage, because marriage has always been understood to be between man and woman by the vast majority of peoples.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:52:33 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
Chris C,

Are you saying you don't want the government to regulate relationships, such as marriage? Do you accephe that the meaning of words change over time with society?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 9:20:40 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
>> "Union between people of the same sex that flout the laws of nature by engaging in unnatural sexual acts will never be marriage, because marriage has always been understood to be between man and woman by the vast majority of peoples." <<
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:52:33 AM

Besides your appeal to tradition fallacy, do you want to do something about 'unnatural sexual acts' in heterosexual marriages eg. oral sex; anal sex ?
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 September 2015 9:35:08 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
"John. I think we've ruled out bestiality, polygamy, incest and underage sex.

"So pack up the straw man 'arguments' ..."

They're 'red-herrings'(fallacies) (or may be red-herring straw-men)

Sometimes also used as slipper-slope 'arguments' - also a fallacy.

Yes, "all anyone is asking for is marriage equality before the law" for something society is recognising as part of continuity of the human dimension - ie. same-sex couples
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 September 2015 9:46:47 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
McReal, "Besides your appeal to tradition fallacy, do you want to do something about 'unnatural sexual acts' in heterosexual marriages eg. oral sex; anal sex?"

Yes! Women, young women and girls need to be supported in refusing anal sex, 'rimming' [mouth-anus] and any other actions that are stupidly risky and damned offensive to them.

Women and girls need to understand that the sexual acts being implied by creative authors, in film and in talk shows for dumbed-down welfare-dependent fools as usual, OK and and expectation of men are NOT any of those things at all.

If girls and young women imagine that practices such as anal sex and 'rimming' are foul and dangerous to their health and wellbeing they are likely right and should go by their intuition and by the advice of medical practitioners.

Parents are just going to have to insist that sex education in schools respects the health, wellbeing and preferences of girls over the 'hurt' feelings of a few Gay activists and that girls and boys receive the due and proper warnings. It is NOT good enough to pretend that condom use is 100% effective, they easily become damaged and dislodged where used for the back passage, where mechanical damage will likely occur anyhow due to the inappropriateness of shoving objects into an area that is not made for it.
tbc..
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 10:40:00 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
contd..

The only way to treat the very serious risks to women of anal sex and the risky partners who demand it and have likely done the same with others including men, is to say "NO!" and mean it. Forget him and move on. However educationalists, health authorities and parents must get in first and early to advise and support girls and young women who are being assaulted with images and (wrong) opinion from the hidden and sometimes not-so-hidden persuaders who are only trying to legitimise risky 'Gay' sex and 'Gay' lifestyle anyhow.

It should be a legal requirement for any man who has experimented with anal sex or any sexual contact with another man, to advise any intended female partner of that as a prerequisite to engaging in any sexual contact. At present women are being denied information that is privy to men and concealed by them, but is vital to the woman's choices affecting her own health and that of any future children.

General Comments

Another excellent article from this author. Thank you.

There is a middle course as he says. However 'Gay' advocates and the leftist 'Progressives' supported by feminists are at pains to deny that fact. Why?
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 10:43:06 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
McReal,

It's not natural as the orificia have different uses, as intended by nature, therefore any practice, in this regard, that is not intended by nature is therefore not natural. The fact that some heterosexual couples engage in unnatural practices doesn't make such practices intended by nature.

Some motorists drive the wrong way up 'One Way' streets but that doesn't make it right and a billy goat has the ability to suck his own penis, so if one is supple enough then this practice is natural; humans however usually need to have their two lower ribs surgically removed to be able to do this, therefore it's an unnatural practice for most males.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:13:52 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
Yes, well Kennett has done a Fraser and gone loopy Left. He has no qualifications in depressive disorders or marriage counselling; he is entitled to personal opinions, as we all are, but he has no business making public recommendations. He has only ever been a politician, and that does not entitle him to tell others what they should do - far, far from it!

With due respect to the author and his legal knowledge, the subject has nothing to do with the law: it has to with science/anatomy.

Science and anatomy because it is quite clear that human sexual gear is not designed for fun between people of the same sex, and the fun bit is included to encourage intercourse for reasons of procreation - the object of the entire business. That's nature: it's natural. Anything else is unnatural. Discussing the sordid business in legal terms merely indicates how low society has sunk.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:29:57 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
"intended", "designed"... By whom?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:47:04 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
//"intended", "designed"... By whom?//

Who do you think, Stezza? They're referring to the non-existent sky fairy that their religion venerates.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:50:29 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
Tony Lavis:

Where do you put your food when you are hungry - in your ear or in your mouth. If you put it in your mouth then are you following the dictates of nature or those of the non-existent sky fairy that your religion venerates?
Posted by phanto, Friday, 4 September 2015 12:10:11 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
//Where do you put your food when you are hungry//

I put it in my oven, phanto. It's a decidedly unnatural thing to do: my oven was manufactured in factory somewhere and it runs on electricity sourced from vast, industrial coal-burning power stations. Clearly if nature intended for us to eat cooked meat, animals would come cooked instead of raw. Maybe I should eat my chicken raw, the way nature intended. And die of salmonella poisoning the way nature intended.

But my chicken dinner will be a lot nicer and lot less likely to kill me if I engage in unnatural practices. Even if that does upset the sky fairy.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 4 September 2015 12:33:30 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
It is physics and medical science that advise women against permitting men to insert a penis or other object in their back passage. They are also advised against relationships men who indulge in risky sex.

If only the law would catch up to require men who engages in anal sex or other sex with men to formally advise women before attempting to initiate sex with them.

Science and risk assessment should advise girls and young women that where the consequence could be very serious harm to themselves or possible offspring, just one risk-taking experience even with a condom (that may fail) is sufficient to win a lottery they would bitterly resent ever taking part in.

Women should be very cynical about any claims of low risk, which are spruiked to assuage the claimed hurt feelings of thuggish Gay activists - the political correctness of Gay activism. There would likely be less than a 1:1,000 risk of being shot if standing in front of the 500yd target on a rifle range with an untrained person shooting one shot. But would you take that risk? What about if he shot again and again?

We should all be standing up for girls and young women and for the children they may want to have one day.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 12:39:52 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
" Women, young women and girls need to be supported in refusing ... actions that are stupidly risky and damned offensive to them."

Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 10:40:00 AM

I agree.
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 September 2015 1:11:28 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
There are appeals to nature.

Many married couples engage in oral sex.

"It's not natural as the orificia have different uses, as intended by nature, therefore any practice, in this regard, that is not intended by nature is therefore not natural. The fact that some heterosexual couples engage in unnatural practices doesn't make such practices intended by nature."
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:13:52 AM

"It is physics and medical science that advise women against permitting men to insert a penis or other object in their back passage."
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 12:39:52 PM

'physics' and 'medical science' do not 'advise' per se.

Though they are often cited in advice.

I was reading an account recently of a woman who never orgasmed until she tried anal sex; thereafter she was fine orgasming with conventional sex. Go figure.

.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 September 2015 1:17:37 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
Tony Lavis:
It was a simple question with two options. Do you put your food in your mouth or in your ear and if so why?
Posted by phanto, Friday, 4 September 2015 1:30:14 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
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 4 September 2015 1:53:30 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
I have't made an argument yet. I just asked you how you determine the best way to decide what course of behaviour to follow when it comes to satisfying your hunger.

You seem content to ridicule how others make their decisions but very reluctant to tell us your way.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 4 September 2015 2:18:21 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
Well this thread’s going well so far. This article, with its invalid equating of same-sex marriage with polygamy and incest and God-knows-what, was only posted today and has already inspired four Appeal to Nature fallacies from Is Mise, onthebeach, ttbn and Phanto, and the argumentum ad antiquitatem from Is Mise. All we need is the Slippery Slope fallacy now and that's a full set.

Some people never learn.

Phanto,

There is such a thing as the implicit and the explicit. You may not have explicitly made and argument one way or the other, but you certainly have done so implicitly. Or do you expect others to believe that your question may actually be leading to an argument in support of same-sex marriage?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 4 September 2015 3:55:15 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,

Female chooks take it up the fundamental orifice and that's natural for chooks, but we ain't talking about chooks, not even old chooks.

Care to explain why the alleged fallacies are fallacies?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 4:19:31 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
Stezza,

Sorry to disappoint you if you thought I would say God. I don't know what (certainly not a who). It's nature, so perhaps designed wasn't the right word. Can you suggest a better one?

However, you and everyone else seem to able to work what everything is for, and where it goes. So you should know what I mean.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 4 September 2015 4:34:37 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
McReal, "I was reading an account recently of a woman who never orgasmed until she tried anal sex; thereafter she was fine orgasming with conventional sex"

Sounds more like creative storytelling.

BTW, was her partner recently released from gaol? Because ex-prisoners feature strongly as the mongrels who force anal sex on their partners, and are also implicated in high HIV infection and transmission to their partners - plural because typically they aren't so moral and principled either.

Any follow-up on her anal fissures, tests for anal cancer and those inevitable other nasties?

It is a serious problem both for health authorities and the women themselves that women are being made to feel like they are letting their partner down if they don't give in to anal sex.

Parents should be very concerned that the pervasive and systemic political correctness being pushed by media outlets like the ABC that should know better, is putting pressure on girls and young women to service men in ways that are opposed to their own preferences and comfort and WILL, not might, put them and their future children at serious risk.

If only the law would catch up to require men who engages in anal sex or other sex with men to formally advise women before attempting to initiate sex with them.

As a community and especially as parents, we should all be standing up defending the rights of girls and young women and for the children they may want to have one day.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 5:12:08 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
extremist Muslim - blow up as many as possible
extremist Christian - point out the dangers of anal sex
extremist lefist- to dumb to equate any difference
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 September 2015 5:37:20 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
Stezza, Rhrosty,

Just to be Devil's Advocate or advocate:

Just because chatterati-opinion-leaders rate the marriage equality issue highly doesn't mean people should be obliged to worry about it or go vote on in Parliament or by Referendum.

I remeber when AIDS was a worry inflicted through a hugely expensive advertising campaign in the 1980s to SCARE heterosexual families about it. See the Grim Reaper ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo .

Turns out that in the 1980s AIDS was a tiny threat to heterosexuals but a major threat to male homosexuals.

The fact that media producers, directors, especially Actors and Advertising execs were disproportionaley homosexual mean't Everyone had to be made SCARED.
_______________________________________________________

I agree onthebeach

The late Farra Fawcett most probably specified that she had "anal cancer" (not just "stomach cancer") because men inflicted an unhealthy frequency of anal intercourse on her http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sns-health-farrah-fawcett-anal-cancer-story.html
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 4 September 2015 6:43:08 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
A J Philips:

“There is such a thing as the implicit and the explicit. You may not have explicitly made and argument one way or the other, but you certainly have done so implicitly.”

Why do you feel the need to tell me that since it would make absolutely no difference to the validity of the questions I asked? Perhaps you are just trying to impress us with your learning.

“Or do you expect others to believe that your question may actually be leading to an argument in support of same-sex marriage?”

You cannot deduce one way or the other what position I have on same-sex marriage from the posts in this thread. Perhaps if Tony Lavis gave me a good method for determining the best way to act in general then I could be persuaded to take up a position different from the one I hold without even mentioning the issue of same-sex marriage. Maybe you are dragging in other threads that you still have a grievance about.

Why not just wait until I present an argument and then respond to what I say rather than what you presume I will say. If you are confident in your arguments you will not need to jump the gun.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:04:11 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 Mise,

Thank you for that one last demonstration of the Appeal to Nature fallacy involving chickens before you ask what it is.

<<Care to explain why the alleged fallacies are fallacies?>>

Toni just provided us all with a link to an explanation of what the Appeal to Nature is (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature). I also explained it recently to Phanto at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311457.

As for the argumentum ad antiquitatem (otherwise known as the Appeal to Tradition fallacy), that’s the assertion that something is good or right just because that’s the way it’s always been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Phanto,

Since you are asking the question as a lead-in to an argument against same-sex marriage, it makes all the difference to the validity of your question.

<<Why do you feel the need to tell me that since it would make absolutely no difference to the validity of the questions I asked?>>

Unless you are actually just curious as to where Toni think one puts their food when they eat (in which case, you’re off topic and your question needs to be deleted), then the validity of your question hinges entirely on its relevance with regards to the same-sex argument debate.

<<You cannot deduce one way or the other what position I have on same-sex marriage from the posts in this thread.>>

Actually, I can from experience with many opponents of same-sex marriage. Including yourself when you made the same error in reasoning.

<<Perhaps if Tony Lavis gave me a good method for determining the best way to act in general then I could be persuaded to take up a position different from the one I hold...>>

This is a silly argument. You eat with your mouth out of habit and because that’s what you know will work. You don’t sit there and ask yourself what is natural.

<<Why not just wait until I present an argument and then respond to what I say rather than what you presume I will say?>>

Because you used exactly the same mouth/eating argument at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311551, so I know where you're going with it.

But hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:32:00 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
Well here it is for the day....rainbow hour...this site isn't sponsored by the ABC by any chance?
It's just not going to happen....it is already defeated...

Tony Abbott will be re-elected because nobody would be stupid enough to vote for the Labor Party...

There will be a plebiscite; on the strength of that vote, the reality will dawn on homosexuals that they are only two percent of the population, and nobody gives a tinkers damn what they want!

There...God has spoken!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:40:20 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
ttbn

"Sorry to disappoint you if you thought I would say God. I don't know what (certainly not a who). It's nature, so perhaps designed wasn't the right word. Can you suggest a better one?"

No I can't, because it is your understanding of nature which is faulty. Things are not "mean't to be" or any of the other words you could use to describe your flawed views on the actions and consequences of things in nature.

Ignoring the fact that humans are part of nature, and by definition, the things we do would are "natural", I could also point out all of the variety in sexuality that exists in nature. However, I don't think this would change anyones mind here on the forum.

Pete,

I'm not sure what your point is? There are many types of risky sexual behaviors, and consequences arising from them. In any situation, has the solution been government regulation?

Overall, This discussion doesn't impact me personally in any way, however I simply don't care what other people do in their own bedroom, or the types of relationships they have with other consenting adults. I don't care if these relationships are public or private, or about the names they want to use to describe their names.

However what I see here and elsewhere, is that there are people on both sides of this who do care, and they want to force others to conform to how they believe personal relationships should be. The mechanism available to them to force people (in either direction) is the government. So my question to everyone here is why do we allow the government to regulate our private relationships?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 10:50:52 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
No commenters need set themselves up as self-appointed directors of discussion/questions.

As I was saying:

Just because chatterati-opinion-leaders rate the marriage equality issue highly doesn't mean people should be obliged to worry about it or go vote on in Parliament or by Referendum.

I remeber when AIDS was a worry inflicted through a hugely expensive advertising campaign in the 1980s to SCARE heterosexual families about it. See the Grim Reaper ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo .

Turns out that in the 1980s AIDS was a tiny threat to heterosexuals but a major threat to male homosexuals.

The fact that media producers, directors, especially Actors were disproportionaley homosexual mean't Everyone had to be given the Frightners.
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 5 September 2015 12:05:05 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
Sorry Pete I forgot you didn't like to be questioned. Probably a sign of a weak argument.

That was a statement, no need to respond.
Posted by Stezza, Saturday, 5 September 2015 9:24:36 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
Stezza,

Try to remember that it is only your OPINION that my ideas of nature are "faulty". You are going to have a difficult time if you continue to barge through life thinking - and telling everbody else- that yours is THE WORD. Nobody is ever convinced by a BS artist.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 5 September 2015 11:41:47 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
Nah Stezza

I just won't be directed by your oddness on how to argue and what about. You have no authoritah matey.

As I was saying:

Just because wouldbe opinion-leaders rate the marriage equality issue highly doesn't mean people should be obliged to worry about it or vote in Parliament or by Referendum about it.

I remeber when AIDS was a worry inflicted through a hugely expensive advertising campaign in the 1980s to SCARE heterosexual families about it. See the Grim Reaper ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo .

Turns out that in the 1980s AIDS was a tiny threat to heterosexuals but a major threat to male homosexuals.

The fact that media producers, directors and especially Actors were disproportionaley of a particular leaning mean't Everyone had to Worry about a disease resulting from the lifestyle of said media producers, directors and especially Actors.
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 5 September 2015 3:09:54 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
//Just because wouldbe opinion-leaders rate the marriage equality issue highly doesn't mean people should be obliged to worry about it or vote in Parliament or by Referendum about it.//

Oh good. When the plebiscite is called the naysayers won't feel obliged to vote and the yaysayers will win in a landslide factory. At which point the Government will pass the legislation allowing gay marriage and the naysayers will only have themselves to blame because they couldn't be bothered voting.

Isn't democracy grand?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 5 September 2015 6:26:41 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
plantagenet, "Turns out that in the 1980s AIDS was a tiny threat to heterosexuals but a major threat to male homosexuals.

The fact that media producers, directors and especially Actors were disproportionately of a particular leaning mean't Everyone had to Worry about a disease resulting from the lifestyle of said media producers, directors and especially Actors."

Agree. However you left out social sciences academics.

Social sciences 'research',
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 September 2015 8:27:02 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
The vast majority of people will continue to understand marriage to be between man and woman and that is no fallacy but fact.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 5 September 2015 9:04:39 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
Not according to the polls over the last ten years, Is Mise.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 5 September 2015 9:52:12 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
I have anxiety and depression for not being allowed to ride a bicycle (without a pot over my head, which is obviously not an option for me).

I do wish for "beyondblue" to take up my case!

---

There are many people who experience anxiety and depression due to the burden of taxes.

---

Now here comes a person who is anxious and depressed because the government would not recognise their qualification as an exorcist. To prove this recognition, they demand that "exorcist" be included in the list of professions one has to select from when filling their tax-return (why "Prostitute" is already on that list, occupation-code #451813, following "Beauty salon assistant", occupation-code 451812!).

However, "An exorcist", government claims, "is a religious concept and we have separation of state and church".

But isn't "marriage" a religious concept too?!

Marriage is a religious sacrament intended to boost an earthly (normally sexually or financially based) relationship and helps to elevate it by reminding the partners to include God in their relationship.

Why on earth would a secular government wish to be involved and define such religious concepts? Why on earth would secular and even anti-religious people want to adopt, register, expand and encourage religious sacraments?

Just as government already pigeon-holes people by defining their profession, it attempts to also pigeon-hole people by defining their relationships. We must resist such attempts and struggle to repeal such laws as the "Marriage Act", rather than to extend them!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 6 September 2015 8:22:46 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
I completely agree Yuyutsu. The government has no right to regulate our private relationships.

However as we can see from some of the commenters here, this acceptance of government intrusion is driven by those who want to force their beliefs on others.
Posted by Stezza, Sunday, 6 September 2015 9:46:51 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
"Not according to the polls over the last ten years, Is Mise."

Which polls were they?

Haven't seen any taken among the world's 1.57 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Catholics and the 14 million Jews, and the majority of the 1 billion Hindus believe very strongly that marriage is between man and woman.
It's OK to be eccentric but don't be so Ozcentric.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 6 September 2015 9:47:40 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
//1.57 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Catholics and the 14 million Jews, and the majority of the 1 billion Hindus believe very strongly that marriage is between man and woman//

How many of those Muslims, Catholics, Jews and Hindus are Australian citizens? Because last time I checked the ones who aren't don't get to vote in our elections or plebiscites which renders their opinions completely irrelevant.

Or maybe you think we should surrender to our sovereignty to some sort of world government. I can see that going down well with the conspiracy theorists :)
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 6 September 2015 10:28:31 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
Is this the 'appeal to the polls' fallacy? The vast majority agree with something so therefore it must be right?

If it is so done and dusted then why bother entering into arguments about it? It only serves to show that you are not secure in your opinions.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 6 September 2015 12:05:13 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,

Very few but the vast majority influence those of our citizens who are of the same faith, and Islam, for one, actively promotes the death sentence for both parties in a homosexual act.

Muslims are one section of our society who are not going to accept the outcome of the plebiscite/referendum, nor is the Catholic Church likely to back down etc.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 6 September 2015 12:15:53 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 Mise,

Clearly I was talking about Australia. What people in other countries think is of far less importance. Either way, there has been a massive shift of opinion, internationally as well, that doesn’t appear to be slowing. I wouldn’t be too quick to hold religions as bastions for bigotry either. Opinions within Christian churches are slowly changing. Churches in the US were once against interracial marriage too.

Phanto,

Yes, there is such a fallacy.

<<Is this the 'appeal to the polls' fallacy? The vast majority agree with something so therefore it must be right?>>

It's known as the argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

Of course, I wasn’t saying that same-sex marriage was right or good because of what the majority think, so I have committed no fallacy. Nice try though.

<<If it is so done and dusted then why bother entering into arguments about it? It only serves to show that you are not secure in your opinions.>>

Yeah, I already addressed this ad hominem (there’s another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)) a couple of weeks ago. But since you’ve apparently already forgotten, here’s what I said again:

“Or that I enjoy debating, or that I want to discredit bad arguments so that others don’t use them and understand why they are bad, or that I like challenging my own views, or that I’d like to change the minds of others. Or maybe I just want to slap down views that I perceive as destructive?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311627)

There are many reasons why I might want to shoot down bad arguments. But you try to make it about me to distract from the weakness of your own position.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 September 2015 1:03:10 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
“Of course, ... I have committed no fallacy. Nice try though.”
So what were you saying? Why bother telling us what the polls are saying if you had no purpose in doing so?

“Or that I enjoy debating, ...“

But there is no point in debating an issue that you think is already resolved. Wouldn’t you get more enjoyment from debating something that has not been resolved if the enjoyment is actually in the process of debating?

Why do you need to discredit bad arguments if such arguments are in fact pointless since the debate is already won? What does it matter if others use them since the point of the argument has already been achieved or as you have declared will soon be achieved based on the polls?

You are not challenging your own views – you are challenging the views of others and why do that where the point of the argument is already achieved? All arguments have a point to them don’t they?

Why do you need to change the minds of others when enough people are already of the mind that same-sex marriage should be legislated for? Is that not the purpose of your arguing?

Why do you want to slap down views that have already been ‘slapped down’? Maybe the word ‘slap’ is a clue to why.

“There are many reasons why I might want to shoot down bad arguments”. There are none they relate to this particular argument.

“But you try to make it about me to distract from the weakness of your own position.”

Well it is about you when you behave in such a hypocritical fashion. Do you expect to come on to the forum and not have such hypocrisy exposed for what it is which makes many people question exactly how serious you really are about your position.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 6 September 2015 1:53:32 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
Phanto,

C’mon, do I really have to explain that?

<<So what were you saying?>>

I was responding to Is Mise’s claim that “the vast majority of people will continue to understand marriage to be between man and woman”. Why was that so hard to understand?

<<Wouldn’t you get more enjoyment from debating something that has not been resolved if the enjoyment is actually in the process of debating?>>

Believe it or not, there are still some out there who are against same-sex marriage, and their flawed reasoning for this position has the potential to influence others if there is no-one to point out the errors in it.

<<You are not challenging your own views...>>

I was listing possibilities. They weren’t necessarily all my personal motives in this instance. In other instances, the above is a motivation, but I think we’ve seen enough on OLO for one to be comfortable that they naysayers haven’t got a case in this particular debate.

<<Why do you need to change the minds of others when enough people are already of the mind that same-sex marriage should be legislated for?>>

Well there’s the point I made earlier about the possibility of bad ideas being passed around. We don’t live in a vacuum. Our beliefs inform our actions and our actions have consequences.

Further to that, I would think that most people would want to know if an argument they are using is a bad argument. I used to be against same-sex marriage even after I left the church. I changed my mind after I questioned whether or not I actually had a rational reason for my position. I would’ve liked someone to have pointed out to me that my opinion was not based on any sound reasoning so that I could have spent less of my life believing something without a good reason.

<<Why do you want to slap down views that have already been ‘slapped down’?>>

Well, clearly not every is aware that they have been.

<<Well it is about you when you behave in such a hypocritical fashion.>>

How have I been hypocritical?
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 September 2015 2:41:58 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
AJ Philips:

“I was responding to Is Mise’s claim that “the vast majority of people will continue to understand marriage to be between man and woman”. Why was that so hard to understand?”

OK but how can you tell what people really believe just because of what they say in a poll. Maybe they are too afraid to say what they truly think.

“Believe it or not....”

Where is the danger in that? You don’t have to influence everyone – just a majority which it seems are well and truly influenced already.

“I was listing possibilities...debate.”

Your motives for other instances are irrelevant so why present them as an explanation for you behaviour in this instance? If the naysayers have not got a case then why keep arguing one?

“Well there’s the point I made earlier about the possibility of bad ideas being passed around.”

Why is this problem? If you have what you already want why does it matter what others think? It is what the majority thinks in this case – that is all that is needed. At least 70-80 per cent is more than enough to declare victory is it not?

“Further to that, I would think that most people would want to know if an argument they are using is a bad argument.”

Why would they want to know if it is a dead argument – it won’t change anything? If they come around to your point of view the end result is the same because both you and they will both have what you want.

“Well, clearly not every is aware that they have been.” Only a majority have to be aware.

“How have I been hypocritical?” It is hypocritical to keep arguing for a position that you already have unless you do not think the same-sex marriage issue is done and dusted. If you do not think that it is then why not? If you do think it is a foregone conclusion then what is your real motivation for arguing?
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 6 September 2015 4:01:35 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
Maybe they are, Phanto.

<<OK but how can you tell what people really believe just because of what they say in a poll. Maybe they are too afraid to say what they truly think. >>

It’s just as well a pro-same-sex-marriage position doesn’t fallaciously rely on polling numbers then, isn’t it. And all the more reason for me to engage with naysayers, too, I might add.

<<Where is the danger in that?>>

Ignorance and poor reasoning always have their dangers, because if someone believes something for a bad reason, then there is a chance that that heuristic will influence their decision-making processes in other more hazardous areas.

<<You don’t have to influence everyone…>>

Most people are not explicitly racist, but I still think it is admirable to fight racism when it pops up.

<<Your motives for other instances are irrelevant so why present them as an explanation for you behaviour in this instance?>>

I didn't. You asserted that there was only one possibility, so I gave you more.

<<If the naysayers have not got a case then why keep arguing one?>>

Because they think they do and naive fence-sitters may think so too. I also find it enjoyable. I’ve already answered this.

<<Why is [the possibility of bad ideas being passed around a] problem?>>

I’ve explained this several times now. I make no apologies for wanting to fight irrationality. Why is it so important to you that I shut up?

<<Why would they want to know if it is a dead argument…>>

I already explained that in my last post.

<<It is hypocritical to keep arguing for a position that you already have unless you do not think the same-sex marriage issue is done and dusted.>>

I have given sufficient reason to continue to advocate same-sex marriage. Your charge is unwarranted.

<<If you do think it is a foregone conclusion then what is your real motivation for arguing?>>

I think same-sex marriage is inevitable in most parts of the world, but there are still bigots whose poisonous ideas need to be fought for reasons I have already mentioned.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 September 2015 4:52:48 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 Philips:

“Ignorance ... areas.”

We are all ignorant about hundreds of issues but unless it leads to action that is detrimental why bother trying to convince someone? If you believe that same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable then their opinions about same-sex marriage can do no harm so why try and influence them?

“Most people are not explicitly racist, but I still think it is admirable to fight racism when it pops up.”

That is because the fight against racism is not over – it is an ongoing issue but if the fight for same-sex marriage is won there is no ongoing issue to fight.

“You asserted that there was only one possibility, so I gave you more.”

But why give me irrelevant ones?

“Because they think they do and naive fence-sitters may think so too. I also find it enjoyable. I’ve already answered this.”

Whether they think they do is irrelevant. What happens is relevant and if same-sex marriage is going to happen then it is irrelevant what the naysayers think. You have answered this and I refuted your argument. It does not become any more logical just by saying you have presented an argument.

“I’ve explained this several times now ...?”

You haven’t explained it you have just given arguments which I have refuted. It is not resolved just because you have presented your arguments.

“I already explained that in my last post.”

What is wrong with learning unless you expect to know everything from birth? Maybe what you learnt has led you to your current position but since that position is almost upon us then there is nothing to be gained by anyone else learning that they were once wrong.

“I think same-sex marriage is inevitable in most parts of the world, but there are still bigots whose poisonous ideas need to be fought for reasons I have already mentioned.”

And which I have refuted as poor reasons. You still have not given good reasons.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 6 September 2015 7:04:10 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
Phanto,

Your concern for my motives is starting to look bizarre.

<<We are all ignorant about hundreds of issues…>>

I also mentioned poor reasoning.

<<If you believe that same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable then their opinions about same-sex marriage can do no harm so why try and influence them?>>

I already addressed this in my fourth paragraph at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17648#312090, and my third paragraph at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17648#312094. You have said nothing to counter it.

<<That is because the fight against racism is not over…>>

Neither is the fight for same-sex marriage until it’s legislated.

<<But why give me irrelevant ones?>>

Because you asserted that there was only one possible explanation.

<<Whether they think they do [have a case] is irrelevant.>>

I have already answered this multiple times now.

<<You have answered this and I refuted your argument.>>

No, you haven’t. You have simply asserted that the war is won and that fighting irrationality is pointless if a majority agree with me. You have not responded to any of my reasoning.

<<It is not resolved just because you have presented your arguments.>>

Indeed. It is resolved because what I have just said above.

<<What is wrong with learning…?>>

I have never said there was anything wrong with learning.

<<Maybe what you learnt has led you to your current position but since that position is almost upon us then there is nothing to be gained by anyone else learning that they were once wrong.>>

You see what I mean? I have already explained why there is and you’ve ignored it and continued down the same line of assertions.

<<And which I have refuted as poor reasons.>>

You have addressed very little of what I have said by simply re-asserting that there is no point in me debating this topic. That’s it.

But this is just one big off topic ad hominem. Why should you care if I had poor reasons for debating this topic? All it would prove is that I was unaware that I was wasting my time. What should matter is whether my position on the topic is backed with sound reasoning.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 September 2015 9:58:55 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
Stezza,

I accept that words change their meanings over time, but I don’t see why “marriage” should change from meaning the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two – or more – people. More importantly I think presenting a demand that a word change its meaning as if it is an issue of human rights is just absurd.

The government already regulates certain aspects of relationships, such as the care of children, the settlement of property when couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, split up and so on. I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t have a problem with the government making a law to officially register same-sex couples. All I object to is the removal from the language of a word that specifically means the union of a man and a woman.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 September 2015 8:00:21 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
Lots of words are homonyms. Fluke is a good example: it can refer to fins on whale's tail, a stroke of luck, the end parts of an anchor, a species of flounder or a class of parasitic flatworms.

My dictionary has two different definitions for marriage. Will the English language suffer from adding a third? I doubt it. You should see how many meanings a nice simple word like 'set' has, but most of us seem to muddle along OK and make sense of what we hear and read because the particular sense in which a homonym is meant is usually evident from context. English is a pretty robust language.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 7 September 2015 8:53:32 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
'Fluke' is indeed a good example but it is not used to give respectability to unnatural sexual practices, it'd be a fluke if it did.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 7 September 2015 10:46:06 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
Again?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 7 September 2015 10:55:18 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
I see homosexuality as a defect in nature...a bit like downs syndrome or any other congenital abnormality. At least with female homosexuality penetration is likely to involve the part of the body that exists for that purpose.
Posted by Roscop, Monday, 7 September 2015 11:23:29 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
//I see homosexuality as a defect in nature...a bit like downs syndrome//

I see people who see people with Down's syndrome as defective as defective.

//At least with female homosexuality penetration is likely to involve the part of the body that exists for that purpose.//

The tongue? The tongue was designed for the purposes of tasting food, speech, blowing raspberries and licking stamps and envelopes. When it is used for sexual purposes that constitutes an unnatural perversion of its intended function.

Or maybe you mean the fingers? Fingers were designed for the purposes of fine-motor manipulation such as writing, sewing and playing musical instruments, for sign language and for making impolite gestures. When they are used for sexual purposes that constitutes an unnatural perversion of their intended function.

Cunnilingus is unnatural. Every time somebody eats pussy God kills a kitten.

Fingering is also unnatural. Every time somebody fingers somebody a fairy dies.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 7 September 2015 2:41:39 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,

Down's syndrome is a defect of nature therefor Down's syndrome people are defective in varying degree.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 7 September 2015 3:33:48 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 "I see people who see people with Down's syndrome as defective as defective." So you think an ad hominem wins the argument?

Regarding your tongue argument...at least its not found in the most grubbiest of holes.
Posted by Roscop, Monday, 7 September 2015 3:34:06 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 Philips:

If you are not doing anything wrong then why have you gone to so much trouble to justify that you are not doing anything wrong? You are answerable to no one here. Is this another argument that you have no need to be involved in?

That is two arguments which you have entered into without good reason. Where there is no good reason there must be a bad one. Using the forums to try and shore up your own personal insecurities is an abuse of the forums. If that is not what you are doing then you will have no need to defend yourself a third time.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 7 September 2015 3:59:36 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
Phanto,

You really need to quit with the amateur psychoanalysis. You’re not good at it.

<<If you are not doing anything wrong then why have you gone to so much trouble to justify that you are not doing anything wrong?

Because you have suggested that I am.

You have said that you think I’m wasting my time. I have responded by stating why I don’t think I am. It’s that simple.

<<That is two arguments which you have entered into without good reason.>>

You have not demonstrated that yet. Again, all you’ve done is continue to ask what the point is in arguing a point that most people agree with me on, and assert that there is no point. That doesn’t address anything I’ve said. A contradiction is not an argument.

<<Where there is no good reason there must be a bad one.>>

Well there’s a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. Did it ever occur to you that there could be varying degrees of good and bad reasons with neutral reasons that are neither good nor bad in the middle? And even if they were bad reasons, that doesn’t suggest any insincerity or anything sinister on my behalf. All it would suggest is that I was unaware that I was wasting my time.

<<If that is not what you are doing then you will have no need to defend yourself a third time.>>

Did it ever occur to you that I may just want to defend my reasons for debating as reasons that I see as having merit? Your posts are filled with false dichotomies.

Again though, this is just the argumentum ad hominem fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Even if you were right, it would say nothing about the strength of my arguments. For some reason you just feel the need to play the man and not the ball now, and each time I defend myself, you then use that to make even more slanderous suggestions.

If you think you have an argument against same-sex marriage that isn’t actually fallacious, then let’s hear it. Otherwise, go and annoy someone else.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 7 September 2015 4:33:01 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
//Down's syndrome is a defect of nature therefor Down's syndrome people are defective in varying degree.//

According to my dictionary, 'defective' means "imperfect or faulty".

If Down's syndrome people are imperfect, and can be conclusively be determined to be imperfect then it follows that:
a) There must be some objective benchmark for human perfection
AND
b) You must have knowledge of what it is.
Otherwise, how could you make a conclusive determination that people with Down's syndrome are imperfect?

So spill: what are the characteristics of a a perfect person? Is the perfect person anything along the lines of the Ubermensch of Nietzscheian philosophy?

As for the idea that people with Down's syndrome are faulty: let he that is without fault cast the first stone.

//So you think an ad hominem wins the argument?//

That wasn't an ad hominem fallacy, you moral degenerate. That was just me expressing contempt for your offensively unpleasant remark about people with Down's syndrome.

Calling people with Down's syndrome 'defective' isn't going to help you win the argument. It's not big and it's not clever, and arguing the way Is Mise and yourself argued in the last few posts can only serve to undermine any convincing arguments your side might offer.

It's not just weak logic, it's appalling rhetoric and Is Mise should know better even if you don't.

//Regarding your tongue argument...at least its not found in the most grubbiest of holes.//

Most grubbiest of holes? Every time you write a sentence like that God kills a grammar teacher.

I don't know where the most grubby hole is located, nor the grubbiest of holes. I don't even know how one measures 'grubbiness', quantitatively or qualitatively. But my candidate for the grubbiest hole would be in a tailings dam somewhere. You'd be unlikely to find anybody's tongue there, because they would rapidly dissolve in the very low pH environment.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 7 September 2015 5:20:52 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,

"People with Down syndrome have:

some characteristic physical features
some health and development challenges
some level of intellectual disability.
Because no two people are alike, each of these things will vary from one person to another."
http://www.downsyndrome.org.au/what_is_down_syndrome.html

these are defects as in:
"defect
noun
....
a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.
"genetic defects"
synonyms: fault, flaw, imperfection, deficiency, weakness, weak spot/point, inadequacy, shortcoming, limitation, failing, obstruction"
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=defect
Down's syndrome persons suffer from defects and are therefore defective.
My first cousin on my father's side had Down's syndrome and my parent's and to a lesser extent I, looked after him from the age of five until he died at seven years, and believe me he was defective in comparison to all the other children that I knew.
He was a delightful little human being but he suffered from genetic defects, and therefore he was defective.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 7 September 2015 6:19:36 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

"If Down's syndrome people are imperfect, and can be conclusively be determined to be imperfect then it follows that:
a) There must be some objective benchmark for human perfection
AND
b) You must have knowledge of what it is.
Otherwise, how could you make a conclusive determination that people with Down's syndrome are imperfect?"

Yes there is an objective benchmark and I have knowledge of it. You obviously don't. The benchmark is 46 chromosomes.
Posted by Roscop, Monday, 7 September 2015 7:00:17 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
//Yes there is an objective benchmark and I have knowledge of it. You obviously don't. The benchmark is 46 chromosomes.//

You consider this the pinnacle of human pefection?

http://cdn2.arkive.org/media/AB/AB626C28-396D-4FA6-B1F4-EAA38932E818/Presentation.Large/Male-Reeves-muntjac-.jpg

Tories say the darndest things.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:24:47 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

"You consider this the pinnacle of human pefection?" Nope! Replace the words "pinnacle of human perfections" with the one word "normal". Homosexuals are "abnormal"
Posted by Roscop, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 12:38:14 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
//Yes there is an objective benchmark and I have knowledge of it. You obviously don't. The benchmark is 46 chromosomes.//

18 hours ago you claimed that there is an objective benchmark for human perfection and that it is 46 chromosomes.

//"You consider this the pinnacle of human pefection?" Nope!//

1 hour ago you changed your mind and decided there was no objective benchmark for perfection after all.

Would you like to decide what your position actually is and then stick to it?

//Homosexuals are "abnormal"//

So are left-handed people. We should ban them from getting married. Also, all references King Edward III, Queen Victoria, Nikola Tesla, Emperor Tiberius, Jack the Ripper etc. should be dropped from school curricula because learning about left-handed people might encourage normal kids to adopt the left-handed lifestyle.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 1:59:36 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

If you wish to use the word "perfection" and "imperfection" then in my understanding of human biology, 46 chromosomes is perfection. Any other number of chromosomes is an anomaly.

You trying make an analogy with left and right handed people etc, is simply a red herring.
Posted by Roscop, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 2:35:30 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:

Under what circumstances might it be reasonable to use the word normal?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 2:36:00 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,

Left handed people are in their right mind.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 5:21:58 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
//If you wish to use the word "perfection" and "imperfection" then in my understanding of human biology, 46 chromosomes is perfection//

And he's back-flipped again. Careful, you'll do yourself a mischief. I still don't buy that Reeves's muntjacs are perfect people. Would you like to reconsider your argument?

//You trying make an analogy with left and right handed people etc, is simply a red herring.//

So red herring fallacies are dodgy arguments:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/151-red-herring

But appeal to nature fallacies are not?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/37-appeal-to-nature

Surely all fallacies are dodgy arguments? Or are fallacies only dodgy arguments when your opponent is making them but not when you're making them?

For the record, I wasn't really advancing the argument that left-handed people be discriminated against. That was intended satirically, to highlight the absurdity of denying people marriage rights just because they're abnormal.

//Under what circumstances might it be reasonable to use the word normal?//

Lot's of different circumstances, phanto. It's a word with many meanings. From the context I have assumed that Roscop means normal in the sense of 'conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected'. In which case homosexuals, left-handers, gingers, type 1 diabetics, gun owners and a whole slew of other people all reasonably fit the definition of abnormal.

Why is it reasonable to disallow one group of abnormal people from getting married but not others? If normality is to be the metric by which we determine the right to get married, then if we are to be consistent we should be banning the diabetics and the southpaws et. al. from getting married. Otherwise we're just being hypocrites, and who wants to be a hypocrite?

//Left handed people are in their right mind.//

There's no reason to assume that this is the case, Is Mise. I've already mentioned Jack the Ripper as a historical lefty, and he's hardly a case study in mental health. Indeed it would seem that left-handedness is associated with a greater risk of developing a number of psychiatric disorders. For example, lefties make up only 10% of the population, but about 20% of people with schizophrenia are left-handed.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:28:45 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,

"The brain is “cross-wired” so that the left hemisphere controls the right handed side of the body and vice-versa and hand dominance is connected with brain dominance on the opposite side – which is why we say that only left-handers are in their right minds!"

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=left+handed+people+are+in+their+right+mind
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:50:49 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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