That’s the beauty of it. I get them to deny things that no reasonable person would deny. All to not agree with me or grant me the tiniest concession. It’s a thing of beauty in what it reveals.
That’s the usual penalty for being repeatedly caught engaging in quibbling, evasion, etc.
Shutting off debate is a perfectly reasonable response when one side of the “debate” is on the level of moon-landing hoaxers, 9-11 MIHOP conspiracists, seekrit-Kenyan-Mooslimb Birthers, etc.
HA! The old “WE” is coming back strong!!
You can do a search or not. I really don’t care. In fact, it results in me not having to field the same questions over and over and over again.
What does “we” say to that. Do you need to have a meeting, or do you feel authorized to speak for everyone?
Ah, Steve MB, you’re particular strain of, uh…um…DEBATE, yeah, that’s it, DEBATE…has made my day.
“Everybody knows that you can see the stars in space.”
“Everybody knows that open flames won’t melt steel.”
“Everybody knows that documents on the Internet aren’t reliable.”
Well, I guess we’re just going to have to keep on denying statements that no reasonable person would deny, the clamor of the crackpots notwithstanding.
Absoutely. Couldn’t agree more. And you’re the one to make those decisions, aren’t you buddy? The world according to Steve. LOve it. Perhaps you should write a book.
The problem with that, is I am correct, and everyone in this thread knows it, and you are utterly wrong. And everyone, but you, in this thread knows it.
Your argument is the country club argument. “This club used to be wonderful, until they let the Irish in!”
So people stop going to the country club. It’s exactly what you’re arguing. That society will see that homosexuals are allowed to marry, and then people will go, “Well, the institution used to be awesome. But look who they let in.”
More brilliance! You’re a gift. A gift, I tell ya. Hey, Steve, here’s one for you, I think “gay couples should be allowed to adopt.”
No, feel free to disagree. But don’t let that knee knock a tooth out!
This is getting stupid. Either make an argument or don’t, but everybody needs to drop the meta-commentary on how the debate is going.
<never mind>
Let’s start with part of my position. Is this a true statement or not:
**Denying gays marriage requires that you find them different than you.
**
Just a yes or no answer, with the understanding that *even if *this statement is true, it does not necessarily follow that your statemnt is untrue.
And…?
And just out of curiosity, how do you know “everyone” in the thread agrees with you on that. What level of confidence do you have that “everyone”, 100%, and not just “most”?
It seemed to be going just fine, until…
Apparently there is such a thing as death by a thousand nitpicks, which is a subset of death by OCD. What’s being lost is the fact that, to you, this is just an intellectual past time, whereas for me, it’s my life. I am the forest, and you are - not the trees, but the little veins in all the leaves. But I’ve noticed that the type of tactics you’re employing are never used by a winning argument, always by a losing argument, as you grasp at any trivial straw to keep from admitting defeat. You have lost, but will never admit it.
Well, we disagree. I’ll also add that just because you might have more at stake in the argument does not mean you are any more likely to hold the more valid position. Sure;y you can’t believe that, do you? I think that assumption is akin to what I’ve been talking about. Due to the passion, which is understandable, that comes from some on your side of the debate, there seems to exist the notion that one can shortcut through the logic. Granted, some of this is expected when discussing things with people who agree with you, but that doesn’t increase the validity of any position. If anything, it suggests a greater likelihood of invalidity, as nothing is challenged.
Since gays are human, and in fact not different (as in a horse or a dog or a toaster) it requires that you find that they aren’t worthy to the same rights as everyone else.
And as to the subject of yes or no answers:
Have you stopped torturing small dogs, Magellan? Just a yes or no answer. :rolleyes:
I was including everyone capable of reason on this issue. Because you are offering something that falls apart when examined.
I imagine some other people who dislike homosexuals agree with your arguments.
mags, are you going to finally fight our ignorance with a direct, “logical” answer to this, or is the only response you can muster simply more of your clouds of bluster and indignation and evasion? If you’re going to claim you already have, well, no, you haven’t.
Think it over as long as you need to.
:rolleyes:, indeed. What you’re suggesting is nothing like what I asked you. My question is 100% on point to the discussion. I’m trying to see specifically where the disagreement is. And this is yet another example of the sloppy thinking that you and yours insist upon—from your side. But I’m no longer surprised at these weak tactics from you and yours. It’s what you do.
Why should I. I have given the reasons for my position before. You’ve probably read them more than once yourself, but maybe not. Regardless, I have very little interest in people asking me for reason, for a rationale, then when I give it, they say “those aren’t good reasons”. What they want are reasons they feel comfortable ascribing to. But that’s a different animal.
And this thread is a textbook case as to why I shouldn’t go through the bother again. I make a 100% factual statement. One that everyone should be able to agree to—no, should agree to—and even that gets me attacked. Yet, not one of you has gone through the trouble of stating what you find wrong with what I put forth. At least one poster admitted his own weakness in that he was afraid that if he granted me an inch he feared I’d gain substantially more ground that that. Or something to the effect.
So, I;m not inclined to go through the same dance yet again with people who have no desire to debate in good faith.
As far as I can recall, magellan’s reasons are that:
- we’ve always done it that way
- gay marriage might have negative social effects decades from now, or at least no-one can prove it won’t
- a marriage between two men or between two women is just too duh obviously different from a heterosexual marriage that demanding they be treated the same is absurd on its face
If he’s come up with something else more recently, I’m not aware of it.
It’s more like the fact (in his mind) that marriage objectively means a union of a man and a woman and calling the union of two men or two women a marriage is as nonsensical as calling a cow a horse.
Which is why it amazes me people continue to argue with him (including myself). Either you believe that or you don’t. I just don’t see that there’s room for common ground or partial agreement or reasonable disagreement there.