You can assert common knowledge all you like, but if you can’t demonstrate it’s common knowledge with, you know, a cite, I’m afraid your credibility will continue to remain in question.
Again, if it truly is common knowledge you should be able to find many examples that support your assertion on the internet. It’s *your *assertion, *YOU *do the work.
[QUOTE=David42]
I don’t know about loonies, but the gay activists have certainly advocated that all gay couples adopt so they can prove that children raised in gay families are just as well off as those raised in straight families, or better off, they like to claim, as though gays are perfect.
[/QUOTE]
No one but you believes that it’s common knowledge.
Yet more distortions. Again. The point he was making that you are implying that SSMs are disgusting.
More nonsense. You have repeatedly tried to claim that single sex couples are inferior parents. Without providing any evidence for your claims, naturally.
Pretend we all just crawled out from under a rock and demonstrate this common knowledge that you speak of. I already showed you how easy it is to use Google to demonstrate that the sky is blue, fire burns, and water is wet, all common knowledge.
You try now. It should be easy. It’s common knowledge, you say. There must be hundreds of cites you can provide.
And don’t change the subject. Nobody is asking you to prove gays are bad parents. We’ve already seen those cites that contradict that notion. Just back up your own damn assertion.
Here’s my idea: instead of making lazy claims about what your friend told you, find out if it’s true. I don’t know Doug and I don’t know if he’s talking out of his ass, although I am pretty confident he is. So instead of falling back on this “everybody knows” nonsense, just post some proof.
No its not common knowledge because I say so, that is also an appeal to your own authority and invalid. But the converse is not valid either, that it is not common knowledge because you don’t know it. A debate judge would decide if I say yay and you say nay. You realize I am contending here with people demanding cites for “go forth and multiply” rising divorce rates in the seventies after no-fault divorce was passed everywhere; that gay activists rally the troops; We all know these things happened. I do not have to prove that the Twin Towers are gone if you didn’t hear about it.
I’d treat them the same whichever way, but as broke as we are I want to cut back on all kinds of tax exemptions, especially corporate, but anywhere it didn’t make good sense. I have said this several times.
Are you keeping track of the cost yet? It’s actually pretty cheap for a legislature to pass a law, you have your printing costs and the light bill and their salaries. Why can’t they do some good work for once like granting gays equal rights?
Do you really have a problem with them fixing the laws you speak of?
One rule doesn’t mean there is not another.
Here is a rule of debate in action:
Debater number one: Because Ultramine Blue is the favored color of artists for a blue sky, and blue skies make up a large percentage of area in landscape paintings, the pigments in area A should be more desired than the pigments found in…
Debater number two: Evidence please.
Debater number one: Of Which part?
Debater number two: that the sky is blue. (two loses points here, big time.)
Debater number one: What? that’s silly, its common knowledge the sky is blue.
Debater number two: I never heard of that I thought it was kind of magenta.
Panel of judges: mulls It is common knowledge. The sky is blue. We withhold taking any points for obstructionism from number two, this time.
(If this was an artist’s debate, they would also find it common knowledge that Ultramarine Blue is a must have for painting a fair weather sky, and that landscapes do have a lot of blue skies in them, but they’d take seriously whether some skies might be kinda magenta, before deciding that fair weather skies are meant by “blue skies” and artists commonly know to grab Ultramarine for that. If it is an economic debate about the value of pigments they would not.)
I’m way tired of being asked for cites to things everybody really should know and admit.
You’ve spent more energy in this thread writing about how it’s common knowledge than just providing a cite, if it were such common knowledge. I never heard of this factoid either but wouldn’t be surprised if it happened somewhere. It’s actually pretty tame and reasonable, I just don’t ever remember the call going out. I’m not sure why people are jumping your case about this in particular since it’s probably one of the least offensive things you’ve said in this thread so far.
Its not nonsense and I am not even going to pretend there is a need to PROVE that activists rally their troops. Thats what activists do.
I’m not going to play games that you don’t know divorce rose after no-fault divorce laws were passed. Everyone knows it did. I’m not going to pretend that you don’t know crime didn’t also rise along with it. Everybody knows it did. I’m not going to pretend that you don’t know there were causal links found between all three. We all know about it.
Especially if you are worth your salt in domestic debates. YOU ALREADY KNOW.
I’m not gonna play games that the bible is a historical document that proves that child rearing is a long cherished reason for marriage. We all know it is and does. I am not gonna provide proof that many cultures have been significantly impacted by this book, SO I am not responding to requests to cites that prove the primary purpose of marriage since antiquity has been, in many cultures including ours, to raise children.
It is too well known to be the serious subject of criticism.
No one has challenged it but I’d have been glad to provide proof about what I said about heartbalms because that is too old of an event to be covered in common knowledge.
I haven’t said anything offensive. A lot have people have misstated what I did say and then say I said something offensive.
What exactly do you refer to? I’m known to apologize if I have said something wrong. I’m certainly careful to avoid ad hominems. Don’t talk about anyones character in the forum.
The debate by its nature involves some consideration of what various people think, and if in remarking on what I believe to be a majority view, I offended anyone, its because I am talking about what other people think, and not because I am trying to insult anyone. I apologize if anyone believes I offended them in a personal way.
Ludicrous. He never said I implied it. Go click reply on the post where he said that and show us.
Also click on reply in any post I made where I said there are inferior.
I said that I favor gays having custody of children, I said that there is not enough evidence to prove an assertion that gays aren’t inferior as well. If I was wrong about the amount of evidence there is, that may be conceded, but not because someone says I am wrong, but because they produce credible cites. My argument is about how much evidence there is, not what the evidence shows.
You say no-one but me believes it is common knowledge, and although a few here have supported some of what I have said, they are of course no-one to you because people who disagree with you do not count. By that standard, of course anything you do not like can’t be common knowledge.
Is there one single other poster on this board who agrees that the statement “…gay activists have certainly advocated that all gay couples adopt so they can prove that children raised in gay families are just as well off as those raised in straight families, or better off, they like to claim, as though gays are perfect.” is common knowledge?
I didn’t ask you to prove that activists rally their troops. I asked you to prove a very specific claim about gay activists trying to get gay families to participate in surveys.
I haven’t said a word about divorce in this thread.
Of course you didn’t mention which assertion. If it was my original claim, not a rebuttal to an unproven statement, it was not something everybody knows or should know, relevant to the topic, and not a misstatement of what I said, I may provide you some evidence.
Which assertion would you like some proof for?
If I pretend that you just crawled out from under a rock, presuming that means you concede having no information, knowledge, and certainly not proof of something you do not even know, I think that means I would win. Wouldn’t it, if you bring nothing to the table?
Debaters should always be prepared in common knowledge, general information, rules of debate, etc. Especially knowledge specific to the debate.
If any of you had been willing to say, “hey, I really don’t know that much about domestic trends over the last seventy years,” I’d have been glad to show more. But to say you know all about it and stuff we all know happened did not happen and I have to prove it, you’re just plain out of luck.
So tell me again whether you just crawled out from under a rock, or if you have some knowledge about the history of domestic trends in this country.
If you are fair and willing to google for proof that the sky is blue, you should have already googled divorce trends if you really really don’t know.
To be honest, I was curious about the repeated assertion because I hadn’t actually heard anything like this and couldn’t quite believe it was true, but willing to entertain the possibility. It’s clear to me now, though, that the statement lacks all credibility given the fact that David42 has pranced around with such vigor to avoid backing up his assertion.
I submit that it’s common knowledge around here is that David42 doesn’t know dick about adoptions within gay families.
Do you have a plausible reason to think they wouldn’t? I mean if you show me some seriousness here I might do a little as you ask. Do you really really believe that they don’t? Why wouldn’t they? What is your reason to doubt it?
Perhaps thats true, I can’t say you have. but others have, I figured they’d read the post too. Sorry if it came out like claiming you had.
[/QUOTE]
Is Doug’s last name Everyone?
[/QUOTE]
No, its Mahoney, but I heard yours is, in fact, but they all say you won’t admit it. If you’re not sure about that and have never heard about it before, you can ask around. I could be wrong about that.
I didn’t make up Doug or his memory. If you wanna know anything about me, I have a lot of liberals around me and am pretty damn liberal myself. But those around me also know me for reigning it in when it gets too ridiculous. But I suppose they all think I sound conservative lately because of our financial crisis. I’m not dumb, sheesh.
Ok, I guess I’ll stipulate that the Wikipedia part you quoted is accurate. I don’t see anything that looks blatantly false about it. How does that lead to your contention that a gay marriage ban would stay Constitutional if sexual orientation was subjected to strict scrutiny analysis?
I modified that long ago, having backed off that claim for too many variables. The claim is that gay activists have encouraged gay families to participate in studies. Sorry if you missed that, but it really is important to read all the posts.
