We’re not the ones who declared a set of arguments as “reasonable” a priori, without even saying what they were.
This is nonsense. Being actually involved in the debate doesn’t rob you of your power of reason. If your opponent appeals to the existence of pink dragons as reasonable, you’re under no obligation to extend the definition of “reasonable” to include that appeal. It’s sparkle-fairies, regardless of who you are.
Huh?
“I have reason to believe Gremlins are living in the bushes by your house.”
“What reasons do you have for that belief?” you might ask.
“I don’t have to give you my reasons.”
Good enough for you? You’ll accept that? After all you can’t be your own jury to call me out on that. That would be wrong.
Okay, I will say it again. We are not “declaring them invalid”. We are pointing out the flaws in the argument and providing evidence to the contrary. There are reasons, external to our (apparent) magical ability to decide things are wrong, why we disagree with the arguments.
Well, if it weren’t for the homosexuals; Raindog wouldn’t be getting pitted right now.
Which means all you people would spend just a little bit less time on your computer…
Which would mean just a little bit less electricity spent to run said computers
Which means just a little bit less green house effects on the planet.
There ya see? Homosexuals are responsible for global warming!
Gah! What’s wrong with you people? It’s so obvious!
Now leave poor Raindog alone.
Depends. Are there millions of other people who believe these Gremlins are there? Have they collectively provided their reasons over and over again? Have these same people analysed your counter-arguments and judged them to be worth shit?
From your perspective, maybe. From his, your evidence sucks.
How would he know? He hasn’t told us what he thought, so we haven’t been able to give him evidence!
If the evidence sucks, refute it and make your point. The point of this pitting is that you don’t show up at a debate and then refuse to debate.
If you post in a Great Debates thread you better be prepared to defend you POV. If you can’t, or are not willing to, don’t post.
I would have thought this was blindingly obvious, but* I did not Pit raindog for opposing same-sex marriage*. I pitted him for making an assertion in Great Debates and then refusing to provide any support for said assertion while continuing to whine about its ramifications.
If he had offered a religion-based argument, I personally would have accepted it as reasonable, if not rational. Same for an argument rooted in “traditional morality”. If he had offered an argument based on the slippery slope (if SSM is legalized, why not polygamy, etc.), I would have accepted it as both rational and reasonable.
Is it unreasonable for gay marriage proponents to assume a priori that arguments against SSM are unreasonable? Certainly. However, that is not the case here; gay marriage has been debated to death and some distance into the afterlife on these boards, and clearly they have yet to see such an argument.
Shodan will of course (actually, already has) claim that any argument however reasonable will be laughed down simply because it is an argument against gay marriage and all arguments against SSM are by librul definition bigoted. He is free to make this claim, of course. However, it is my understanding that people who choose to debate ideas in GD generally do so not in the hope that their debate opponents will be swayed, but that some hypothetical lurker will be inspired to leave his fence post and come down on one side or the other. Assuming that this is the case, raindog’s posts in that thread would certainly appear to serve as pretty conclusive proof of the rightness of the pro-SSM cause.
What do “millions of other people” have to do with it? So what if they have provided their collective arguments over and over again? They can still be full of shit themselves.
For example:
Your metric is worthless by itself.
Fabulous?
I find it funny that people here are actually defending someone not supporting their position in a debate. What the fuck else is expected of someone in a debate?
To run with your tail tucked between your legs before the newly discovered “liberal mafia” tears you and your non-argument to bits.
Seriously, these dimwits have me WTFing quite a bit as well. 'cept for Shodan of course – he is just doing his usual shit-stirring bit.
How about, “I support outlawing murder because I do not, personally, wish to be murdered, and it is therefore in my best interest that society discourage its members from murdering each other.”
Really, the problem with moral arguments is that they aren’t really arguments. Saying you oppose SSM because its immoral doesn’t really tell us anything. We can already assume that you think SSM is a bad thing, otherwise you wouldn’t be opposed to it. What’s significant is why you think it’s immoral.
(General “you” there, not you in specific, Chessic.)
When did raindog give us an X or a Y? Did I miss it? Please link.
No, it is like going to a creationist message board, claiming there are hundreds of reasons to accept evolution, and then not give any.
For instance, if he said SSM should be outlawed because it is an anathema to God, that is a reasonable explanation from his point of view, even if not a constitutionally valid reason to ban SSM.
BTW, in the thread Bricker eventually gave a reason, which he defended as well as probably possible.
FWIW, I doubt raindog will be showing up – isn’t he the one who says the Pit “cheapens” or is “a disgrace” to the SDMB?
From here.
That liberal mafia can be pretty rough. My uncle was late with his protection money, and they knocked the Starbucks coffee out of his hand while he was trying to write a blog entry against the death penalty on his Apple Macbook while waiting for his Prius to be serviced. Nasty bunch.
First, I did mention that no one had to waste their time by poking holes in the arguments provided, but thanks for going the extra mile.
Second, yes, I’m well aware that you think all (or nearly all) instances of anti-SSM arguments that are not explicitly based in bigotry or religion are willful lies, crafted to disguise one’s true agenda. Because you are psychic, and therefore able to peer into the souls of men, and what you have generally found in those souls is the sort of cartoonish villainy with which we all have so much real-world experience.
That said, yes, sometimes these types of arguments will be a socially acceptable cover for a conscious antipathy towards gays. Probably more frequently, they will be the conscious manifestation of a *subconscious *antipathy for gays. And sometimes, they will be advanced by honest-to-god social conservatives who don’t care about homosexuality one way or another, but do have some particular ideas about tradition, social structure, etc.
Taking a somewhat different tack: you’re saying that these arguments can’t be reasonable because they are logically inconsistent and/or contrary to fact . . . but that’s simply what it means to disagree with something. Your objection makes no sense unless you think that no position which is contrary to your own is reasonable. That’s ok if it’s how you want to use the term, but I don’t think it’s standard. For me, if the argument is emotionally sedate, superficially plausible, and follows an A, B, and C; therefore D structure, that’s good enough to deem it a “reasonable argument” (as opposed to an emotive argument, or a screed, etc.).
Sure; I was just trying to address the larger point.