Getting married is only for a man and a woman not for the homosexual
people. But God wants people to marry but only if one man and one woman only. Not ever the Gay people unless there are cured than OK.

I don't like this guy Osungwu because he is a police and dangerous if they do not like you. Same all over the world and in Albania is the police dangerous and not be ever trusted. But this AJPhilips is in love with himself and knows everything all the time. But not like Osungwu, who is nasty and has revengeful against people, sure all police are the same. Bad and revengeful must never to be trusted.

AJP
This is the definition I posted:” Perversion:Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something:
The link has alternate definitions, but was given only as the source of the one I posted, not to give you a choice. I made no reference to the definition you posted, at any time.
Very careless of you, but dispels any idea that you are lying. It demonstrates simply that you do not know what you are talking about. No wonder you lost the debate.

Leo Lane,

My apologies. I’ve gotten into a habit of skimming your posts because, usually, they’re all the same post.

<<The link has alternate definitions, but was given only as the source of the one I posted, not to give you a choice. I made no reference to the definition you posted, at any time.>>

However, this doesn’t resolve your problem for two reasons. Firstly, by referring to gay people as “perverts”, you were referring to the definition I quoted:

Pervert:
A person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pervert)

So again, who determines what is “abnormal” and “unnaceptable”?

Secondly, your ambiguous defining of “perversion” qualifies as equivocation. Another fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Your use of the label, “pervert”, implied the second definition of ‘perversion’ (the one I quoted), but then, when asked to provide evidence that homosexuality was a perversion, you switch to a different sense of the word. That's equivocation.

<<It demonstrates simply that you do not know what you are talking about.>>

No, it just demonstrates that I didn’t read that part of your post carefully enough.

<<No wonder you lost the debate.>>

That’s the way, Leo. When you can’t demonstrate that you’ve won the debate, just dig your heels in and re-assert that you have. You’re the only one between the two of us who has committed a fallacy. Heck, I pre-empted the Appeal to Nature for you and you still managed to fine another fallacy to invoke!

Anyway, there have been so many fallacies in this debate, I think it’s high time we did a count of them.

- The Appeal to Nature
- The Argumentum ad antiquitatem
- The ad hominem
- The Shifting of the Burden of Proof
- The Argument from Self-knowing
- The False Analogy
- Equivocation

That’s seven fallacies from the anti-same-sex-marriage brigade, yet those for it are the ones who are supposedly losing this debate?

You guys are a riot!

A.J.PHILIPS...

I note you're again on the lecture circuit, with your devoted acolytes sitting patiently at you knee, in order they not miss a skerrick of 'wisdom' that pours forth from your mouth? If any of your arguments as you put it, had merit, perhaps then I'd respect what you say. And 'appealing to an authority' - what absurdity is that, when asked what you did for a living ?

It's abundantly clear, you're either ashamed or self-conscious about your job. That's OK but why? You in turn inquire why I do I wish to know? That's easy - to confirm a suspicion.

In one of your earlier posts, you claim to have a good understanding of, operational police procedure? And I say to you A.J.P. 'bunkum'! However as you claim that everything you say is factual and rational, so we'll play it your way shall we - lets see how the criminologist deals with a routine operational deployment?

You're mobile, with yourself and another male as crew:

*there's an all cars message; *inquiring as to the closest sector car to a particular address; *you respond; *Dispatch directs you to that address, advising of a reported domestic; you know from previous experience, it's a well known Gay retreat.

Seems to be a relatively routine job, you'd agree?

Question: What is the first thing you would do ? Remember it's procedure.

And as you've averred, on two past occasions, '...modern police methods are based on criminological theory...' or similar language. The above routine scenario should be easy for your academically deductive, analytical mind to embrace eh A.J.P ?

Sorry AJ no amount of disingenuous prattle or obfuscation will change the result... You are losing the argument.

Not rocket science, pretty simple really...

In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.

As for you Minor Taur.... yapping like Chester around Spike's ankles and lying about what has been said because you are 1/ dishonest or 2/ ignorant of previous posts... will do you and your argument no good either.

You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts and in reality are "reductio ad absurdum" so puhlease enough of the crap you spout re types of argument... you both bore me with your arrogant denial of reality.

o sung wu,

I wouldn’t exactly call it “wisdom”, but thank you all the same.

<<And 'appealing to an authority' - what absurdity is that ...>>

When you attempt to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that you're the one who was a “copper for 32 years”, that’s fallacious.

<<It's abundantly clear, you're either ashamed or self-conscious about your job.>>

If one ignores my reasoning for not stating it, sure.

<<However as you claim that everything you say is factual and rational …>>

When have I claimed that?

<<… you claim to have a good understanding of, operational police procedure?>>

No, I just claimed to know more than “nothing, nought, zip”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333419)

As for your pop quiz, my answer is the same as the one I gave at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201811.

--

T800,

Still claiming to be winning the argument despite your generous contribution to your mob’s list of fallacies?

<<Sorry AJ no amount of disingenuous prattle or obfuscation will change the result... You are losing the argument.>>

So what is it that I’ve said that is disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate? Your response was conveniently light on those details.

<<In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.>>

Correct. Not sure what most of those capital letters were about, though. Was it to make the statement look more official?

<<The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... >>

So how is this so different to the other decisions that we elect our members of parliament to vote on? You gave some doom-and-gloom predictions earlier, but never responded to my criticisms of them.

<<You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts …>>

Which facts are these?

<<… and in reality are [arguments that are] "reductio ad absurdum" …>>

Really? Which arguments were those? You conveniently forgot to mention them.

I suggest you read up on what the reductio ad absurdum is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The only examples of reductio ad absurdum I see in this thread are the hysterical predictions of the sky falling in.