# South Africa more progressive than U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2002, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005 "2002-07-26T21:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/41 "2002-07-31T00:01:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hastur \* > \*\* > > Now, would you care to explain _why_ you believe your statement is true? Or will you be like WV\_Woman and just stamp your little foot, refuse, and leave the thread? \*\* If I were not already familiar with the intellectual dishonsety rife on these boards, I might ask why I am expected to justify my disagreement with a statement, while the original statement is not expected to be supported. Bigotry is malicious discrimination, and this is not malicous. Miller > [@](#): > > Unfortunetly, your characteristically gnomic and opaque posting style did not make this immediately obvious. I do not see how failing to state every position I do not hold is “gnomic and opaque”. No, I am not “dis-allowing that you can be a bigot and discriminate”. I am also not saying that the moon is made of green cheese, that Geroge Bush is a space alien, or that cycling is not a sport. In fact, you can take it as general rule that if I didn’t say something, then I didn’t say it. I really don’t know how this is such a difficult concept to comprehend, or why you believe justified in blaming me for failing to provide for the possibility that you would not realize it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/42 "2002-07-31T01:36:47Z")
Well, Ryan, the fact of the matter is that you are the single poorest communicator on these boards. Semi-literate leet-speak teenagers have better luck getting their point across. Virtually without fail, any time you involve yourself in a debate, it devolves into a morass of “I didn’t say that,” and “That’s not what I meant.” After a certain point, you have to consider that the fault may not be with your audience, but with yourself. Take this thread, for example. You come here out of the blue and say, “It is absurd to claim that [denying legal recognition of gay marriage] is bigotry,” with absolutely no support. Why did you wait three posts to clarify that you’re defining bigotry as _malicious_ discrimination? Why not put that right in your first post? “This isn’t bigotry, because bigotry is malicious, and I don’t think there’s any maliciousness here.” It would make your point instantly clear, it would shepherd discussion towards a meaningful end (wether or not people oppose gay marriage out of maliciousness), and people would probably not groan in dismay every time you enter a debate. You also tend to state a subjective opinion as objective fact. You’ve done that here, twice. First, when you define bigotry as only being malicious. Not all dictionaries agree on that qualifier, and even if they did, you ought to be aware both that most people do not use dictionary-precise definitions in casual speech, and that dictionaries are by nature behind the curve of language usage. At the same time, you are stating as a fact that people who are against gay marriage are not doing so out of maliciousness. Now, personally, I don’t think there is a credible argument that this is anything other than malicious. That said, there is plenty of room for debate on the issue, but only if the other debators are aware that the issue exsists. Finally, it appears that you are wholly ignorant of subtext. I’m going to predict that, at some point in this thread, someone is going to call you a homophobe, which you will respond to by denying and demanding evidence of where you said anything homophobic. And you will be correct, you will (likely) have not said anything homophobic. But you will also be completely ignoring the context of your statements, both within the thread itself and within Western society in general. And the context is, people who argue against gay marriage are frequently homophobic. Since you insist on posting one or two line conclusions without spelling out the premises by which you arrived at that conclusion, people are going to eventually start reading the most likely premises into your posts. In sum, your posts are gnomic in that you insist on making short statements and presenting them as a universal truth, and you are opaque in that you are somehow reluctant to reveal the reasoning behind your arguments. Both of these are sure-fire recipes for miscommunication, and they are wholly and entirely your fault. They are, however, easily correctable if you are willing to consider how others might misinterpret your posts and make the simple effort to explain yourself so that obvious misinterpretations are avoided. I know that wiser and more esteemed Dopers have made these same observations to you before, and they have had little impact on your posting style. I expect this post will meet with similar results. Which is a shame, because I think you are a genuinely intelligent person with a definite contribution to make. But communication has to be worked at from both ends, and until you are willing to make the effort to ensure you are properly understood, you are going to continue to be dismissed by most other posters as a blow-hard and border-line troll more obsessed with arguing meaningless points of semantics then engaging in an honest debate. ---
**Author:** ![Thylacine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thylacine/32/1143_2.png) [@Thylacine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thylacine)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/43 "2002-07-31T02:22:45Z")
[South African version of Sesame Street introduces an HIV+ muppet](http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,4707968%255E10229%255E%255Enbv,00.html) > [@](#): > > But US Republican lawmakers say they are worried about the plans. > > Hollywood newspaper Daily Variety has reported five members of the House committee on energy and commerce said the Muppet would be unwelcome on American TV. Yup, the USA is much more progressive than SA :rolleyes: sorry to hijack the thread back to something relevant to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Eternal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@Eternal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eternal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/44 "2002-07-31T05:06:12Z")
Maybe we should clarify the terms: Whether or not something is progressive is purely subjective. What this thread is about is whether or not South Africa is abiding by popular leftist thought more than America. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/45 "2002-07-31T16:52:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eternal \* > \*\*Maybe we should clarify the terms: Whether or not something is progressive is purely subjective. What this thread is about is whether or not South Africa is abiding by popular leftist thought more than America. \*\* Oh, please. This thread is about how denying civil rights to a portion of the population is bigotry. Ok, **Captain Amazing** , can we discard the arguements you present (although I understand you may not espouse them yourself) as irrelevant, outdated or asinine? > [@](#): > > 1. You might believe that the only purpose of marriage is to sire/bear children, and in that case, a gay marriage wouldn’t be possible. So does this invalidate all heterosexual marriages where no children are possible due to infertility or no children are present by choice? This arguement is both outdated and asinine. > [@](#): > > 1. You might think the term “marriage” has some sort of traditional or religious meaning, and should be reserved for the tie between a man and a woman. Then marriage shouldn’t be of _any_ civil concern. If it’s a religious institution why does the government allow joint taxes and other benefits based on marriage? These benefits based on marriage amount to discrimination when participation is denied because of sexual orientation. I can accept this arguement only if civil benefits are removed as a benefit to a religious arrangement. > [@](#): > > 1. You might not believe in the institution of marriage itself, for anyone, thinking it’s an outdated or exploitive situation. Then work towards abolishing marriage. This arguement is irrelevant to whether gay marriages or civil unions are legal. If it continues, then it should be open to all citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/46 "2002-07-31T16:55:43Z")
From [dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com) : pro·gres·sive Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv) adj. 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. 4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. 5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. 6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. 7. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. 8. Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress. We need to define **progressive**. So, I see #6 makes sense. It is an accurate description of the way the word is used concerning taxes. But, look at #1, 2 and 3! My version of “progress toward better conditions or new policies” is a hellova lot different than a liberal’s version of the same. Since when do liberals get sole ownership of this word? If someone is against gay marraiges then their idea of “progress toward better conditions” is to further restrict the actions of gays. To me, the word has no meaning or use except to inflame people. ---
**Author:** ![Opengrave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/919ad9/32.png) [@Opengrave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opengrave)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/47 "2002-07-31T17:37:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Unfortunetly, your characteristically gnomic and opaque posting style did not make this immediately obvious. I apologize for not suffciently deconstructing your post before replying. [Miller](http://www.theonion.com/onion3826/grad_student.html) ??? 🙂 > [@](#): > > If it’s a religious institution why does the government allow joint taxes and other **benefits** based on marriage? These benefits based on marriage amount to discrimination when participation is denied because of sexual orientation. I can accept this arguement only if civil **benefits** are removed as a benefit to a religious arrangement. (emphasis mine)… cite please? [Marriage Penalty?](http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Taxes/Reform/Marriage_Penalty/) I’ll agree that there are some laws regarding asset transfers that favor ‘married’ persons but it is offset by other marriage penalties so it sort of works out. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/48 "2002-07-31T18:24:52Z")
[Benefits, briefly](http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html) [More here.](http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-fedd.html) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/49 "2002-07-31T22:56:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > Virtually without fail, any time you involve yourself in a debate, it devolves into a morass of “I didn’t say that,” and “That’s not what I meant.” After a certain point, you have to consider that the fault may not be with your audience, but with yourself. To prevent that on my end, I must go to great length to spell out exactly what I do and do not mean, and repeatedly state obvious disclaimers. To prevent it on your end, all you have to do is not put words in my mouth. I don’t see why I should greatly inconvencience myself to prevent minimal inconvencience on your part. > [@](#): > > Why did you wait three posts to clarify that you’re defining bigotry as _malicious_ discrimination? Should I define every word I use? And then should I define every word I use to define the original words? > [@](#): > > You also tend to state a subjective opinion as objective fact. I cannot take such a crtiticism seriously from someone who starts out a post with the statement "Well, Ryan, the fact of the matter is that you are the single poorest communicator on these boards. " I may imply that a subjective opinion is fact, but you actually **stated** it was. > [@](#): > > At the same time, you are stating as a fact that people who are against gay marriage are not doing so out of maliciousness. No, I’m not. I’m stating that there is nothing inherently malicious in denying same-sex marriage. Suppose that Colin Powell were to run for president. There almost certainly would be people who would not vote for him out of bigotry. But that wouldn’t make not voting for him, in itself, bigotry. > [@](#): > > But you will also be completely ignoring the context of your statements, both within the thread itself and within Western society in general. And the context is, people who argue against gay marriage are frequently homophobic. First of all, you are implying that I am arguing against same-sex marriage, which is yet another example of people putting words in my mouth. Considering your previous statements, I expect you to think that too is my fault. Secondly, your implication that stereotypes are okay if they are occasionally shown accurate is disturbing. Homebrew > [@](#): > > So does this invalidate all heterosexual marriages where no children are possible due to infertility or no children are present by choice? This arguement is both outdated and asinine. There are plenty of arguments for both answers to that question. Just because fewer people make an argument than in the past, that does not make it “outdated”, and you not agreeing with it does not make it “asinine”. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/50 "2002-08-01T16:51:42Z")
No. The fact that that arguement is irrelevant and without basis make it outdated and asinine, regardless of my opinion. It is outdated because the concept of a marriage being primarily about breeding is not valid in our society as evidenced by the number of households without children. It is asinine because it has no logical basis. If you disagree, then explain. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/51 "2002-08-01T18:05:34Z")
**Homebrew** , is this how they debate in Texas? I know dealing with the Ryan can be frustrating, but **Captain Amazing** gave the obvious example of procerative marriage, to which you said: > [@](#): > > So does this invalidate all heterosexual marriages where no children are possible due to infertility or no children are present by choice? This arguement is both outdated and asinine. Unless “outdated and asinine” is code for “That’s an argument I can’t handle,” you owe all of us an actual explanation for why you think one of the obvious functions of marriage (wow, having kids) doesn’t blow apart your linkage of discrimination to bigotry. Or, you can stop hijacking your own thread with these embarassingly disingenuous arguments, whichever. Of course, I’m proably expecting too much of an honest debate – I seem to recall we’ve been through this before, though I still see ignorance spreading. Fair discrimination is _not_ bigotry, for what feels like the millionth time. For instance, forgive me if I discriminate against over-the-top appeals to ignorance as contained in your posts, and stick to threads where the OP refrains from hijacking a possible useful discussion, I would not be bigoted towards whichever class you represent, just sensible. Next time I’m just cutting and pasting this, because the debate doesn’t seem to be advancing. Once again, we _sacrifice_ as a society to give benefits to the _married pool_. Capiche? We can not allow everyone be married and get the same benefits that go to raising the next generation – it’s a zero-sum game. The more people in the pool, the less they all take from the people _out_ of the pool. And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.) Or didn’t you notice kids were a tax deduction? As an aside, I can understand your anger at the backwards nature of Texas. But don’t feel singled out. Remember, you’re last in education and pollution, and first in jackassed poliitians, humidity and heat. Soon, you’ll make it to the 19th century, I’m sure. If I were you, I’d move to Vancouver. I here they’re quite progressive and their weather and ganja are quite chillin’. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/52 "2002-08-01T18:13:06Z")
**Homebrew** , is this how they debate in Texas? I know dealing with the Ryan can be frustrating, but **Captain Amazing** gave the obvious example of procerative marriage, to which you said: > [@](#): > > So does this invalidate all heterosexual marriages where no children are possible due to infertility or no children are present by choice? This arguement is both outdated and asinine. Unless “outdated and asinine” is code for “That’s an argument I can’t handle,” you owe all of us an actual explanation for why you think one of the obvious functions of marriage (wow, having kids) doesn’t blow apart your linkage of discrimination to bigotry. Or, you can stop hijacking your own thread with these embarassingly disingenuous arguments, whichever. Of course, I’m proably expecting too much of an honest debate – I seem to recall we’ve been through this before, though I still see ignorance spreading. Fair discrimination is _not_ bigotry, for what feels like the millionth time. For instance, forgive me if I discriminate against over-the-top appeals to ignorance as contained in your posts, and stick to threads where the OP refrains from hijacking a possible useful discussion, I would not be bigoted towards whichever class you represent, just sensible. Next time I’m just cutting and pasting this, because the debate doesn’t seem to be advancing. Once again, we _sacrifice_ as a society to give benefits to the _married pool_. Capiche? We can not allow everyone be married and get the same benefits that go to raising the next generation – it’s a zero-sum game. The more people in the pool, the less they all take from the people _out_ of the pool. And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.) Or didn’t you notice kids were a tax deduction? As an aside, I can understand your anger at the backwards nature of Texas. But don’t feel singled out. Remember, you’re last in education and pollution, and first in jackassed poliitians, humidity and heat. Soon, you’ll make it to the 19th century, I’m sure. If I were you, I’d move to Vancouver. I here they’re quite progressive and their weather and ganja are quite chillin’. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/53 "2002-08-01T18:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.) So why can infertile heterosexual couples marry? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/54 "2002-08-01T18:52:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Once again, we sacrifice as a society to give benefits to the married pool. Capiche? We can not allow everyone be married and get the same benefits that go to raising the next generation – it’s a zero-sum game. Nonsense, for several reasons: 1. There are legal and financial benefits to marriage that accrue even in the absence of any offspring; 2. In fact, if every single man and single woman decided to enter into conventional man-woman marriages tomorrow, there is nothing “we” could do to stop them; 3. Wealth is not a constant; 4. If enough people were taking enough income tax deductions for dependent children, and the government saw a revenue shortfall as a result, they could reduce the size of the deduction, increase the tax rates in each bracket, or raise additional revenue through some unrelated means. > [@](#): > > And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.) Or didn’t you notice kids were a tax deduction? What does that have to do with marriage? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/55 "2002-08-01T18:54:12Z")
Oh, I almost forgot: Unmarried people with dependent children get to take the tax deduction also, which pretty much blows your little diatribe right out of the water, you dishonest putz. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/56 "2002-08-01T20:21:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\* > So does this invalidate all heterosexual marriages where no children are possible due to infertility or no children are present by choice? This arguement is both outdated and asinine._\* Well, yes, it would. The view I mentioned would be the **Henry VIII** argument. 🙂 Like I said, though, very few people in western society hold that view of what marriage should be. I believe societies still exist where infertility is considered sufficient cause for divorce, though. However, you don’t see the view in western culture anymore, outside of some segments of Catholic canon law and what’s left of Europe’s royal families. > [@](#): > > **Then marriage shouldn’t be of _any_ civil concern. If it’s a religious institution why does the government allow joint taxes and other benefits based on marriage? These benefits based on marriage amount to discrimination when participation is denied because of sexual orientation. I can accept this arguement only if civil benefits are removed as a benefit to a religious arrangement.** Actually, the “marriage is special” argument is the strongest and most common of the three arguments I mentioned, partly because it’s an emotional argument rather than a logical one, and emotional arguments are really hard to combat. The fact is that, in addition to the legal implications of marriage, the word also has certain emotional and social connotations. By introducing the topic of “gay marriage”, you upset those cultural expectations, and people get upset. Remember, also, that someone who holds this argument might support marriage equivilance for gays, and in fact, that’s what happened in Vermont. The state legislators realized that they couldn’t get a law passed extending marriage to gay people, so they set up a new category, the “civil union”, which was open to gay couples, and gave people who participated in civil unions the same rights under Vermont law as it gave married couples. > [@](#): > > \*\*Then work towards abolishing marriage. This arguement is irrelevant to whether gay marriages or civil unions are legal. If it continues, then it should be open to all citizens. \*\* Well, those people who don’t believe in marriages for anyone do work towards abolishing marriage. It’s not irrelevant, though, bedause a person who holds this view might think, "Why should I support marriages for gay people if I want to see it gotten rid of for straight people. Personally, I don’t support any of those views. I favor gay marriage, although, in practical terms, because of the strength of the second position, I have the feeling that I’m going to have to settle for gay civil unions. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/57 "2002-08-01T21:21:41Z")
As I mentioned before, **Captain Amazing** , I realized you were presenting the arguments, not necessarily endorsing them. > [@](#): > > Well, yes, it would. The view I mentioned would be the Henry VIII argument. Like I said, though, very few people in western society hold that view of what marriage should be. I believe societies still exist where infertility is considered sufficient cause for divorce, though. However, you don’t see the view in western culture anymore, outside of some segments of Catholic canon law and what’s left of Europe’s royal families. Hence, my labeling it as outdated. > [@](#): > > _And the pot calls the kettle “black”_ > I know dealing with the Ryan can be frustrating **Ace** , you dimwitted blowhard, try to pay attention. Back on page one I linked to a web site that shows the myriad of benefits of marriage, many, if not most, of which have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Therefore denial of these benefits to committed couple just because they are same-sex is wrong. Furthermore gay families can have children involved. **I** have a son. So why can’t I marry another man and take advantage of these benefits you claim are primarily to help with raising my son? BTW, everyone, I think I’ve discovered Ace’s [source of debate tactics](http://www.io.com/~jwtlai/illogic.html). > [@](#): > > For the novice who may not be able to identify an Illogician on sight, they are characterized by one or more of the traits listed below: > [ol] > [li] Argument ad nauseam. [/li]The Illogician prefers arguments by assertion, rather than proof. Repeated assertion makes the Illogician’s position stronger, in size. > > E.g. “I’m right, I’m right, I’m right.” > Also termed argument in _numerus redundus._ > > a. \*Argument ex argument redundus. \* > > This argument can be carried out indirectly by making references to another source which makes unproven assertions. > E.g. “And this book says I’m right.” and “It’s always been tradition.”. > > [li]Argument ab ignoramus. [/li]Counterarguments which point out inconsistencies in the Illogician’s stance are ignored. Since stating a position makes it stronger, ignoring an opposing position will weaken the opponent, according to the Illogicians. Similarly, when faced with multiple detractors, Illogicians prefer to continue arguments only with the weakest opponents. > > Overgeneralization and stereotyping are related phenomena, as they involve the elimination of troublesome instances which disprove by their very existence the claim. > > a. _Dismissal cum excretia._ > Similarly, opposing sources are to be dismissed offhand as tripe. > E.g. “That’s a load of crap.” or “He is a lying turd.”[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/58 "2002-08-01T21:44:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > Back on page one I linked to a web site that shows the myriad of benefits of marriage, many, if not most, of which have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Therefore denial of these benefits to committed couple just because they are same-sex is wrong. Whoa! Spot the illogic, boys and girls. You just agreed with me that marriage has something to do with procreation – that’s the converse of “most of which have nothing” – yet you want all the benefits! If you changed your second statement to say “denial of _much, if not_ most of the benefits would be wrong,” then your argument would make sense. Hey, I’m for gay unions, if you recall – I’m all for venerating strong bonds, as it’s a social good. Oh, and do try not to trip over your own argument when you post. The rest of your ad hominem ad nauseum is as usual – no proof, no cite, no argument. Is it over 100 in Texas or something? And we’re still waiting for what the heck ‘outdated and asinine’ means… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/59 "2002-08-01T22:06:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > Nonsense, for several reasons: > > 1. There are legal and financial benefits to marriage that accrue even in the absence of any offspring; > > 2. In fact, if every single man and single woman decided to enter into conventional man-woman marriages tomorrow, there is nothing “we” could do to stop them; > > 3. Wealth is not a constant; > > 4. If enough people were taking enough income tax deductions for dependent children, and the government saw a revenue shortfall as a result, they could reduce the size of the deduction, increase the tax rates in each bracket, or raise additional revenue through some unrelated means. 1.2.3 All true, but irrelevant. We’re arguing, to clarify, if procreative marriages are _more valuable_ than non-procreative marriages, which would be a legitimate source of disrimination, the question to which **Homebrew** posed,not “let’s get rid of all non-procreative marriages,” or whatever the strawman catch of the day is. 1. You’ve confirmed the argument that you considered nonsense – the government would have to lessen the benefit for the increased pool of married, kid having couples. Imagine a toy U.S. with four couples. One is married and has kids, One is married but is trying to have kids, One can’t have kids, and one isn’t married. Who should take the riskier jobs, and do the longer hours (i.e. Social sacrifice), so that the community can continue? > [@](#): > > you dishonest putz. you dimwitted blowhard It’s hard to debate sensibly with all the name calling – I don’t do that so, I’ll ask you and Homebrew to stop that, or open a separate pit thread for it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005/60 "2002-08-01T22:35:07Z")
> [@](#): > > To prevent that on my end, I must go to great length to spell out exactly what I do and do not mean, and repeatedly state obvious disclaimers. To prevent it on your end, all you have to do is not put words in my mouth. I don’t see why I should greatly inconvencience myself to prevent minimal inconvencience on your part. Great lengths? **Homebrew** says (in effect) “Not allowing same sex marriage is bigotry.” Your reply? “No, it’s not.” How is this in anyway helpful towards creating a constructive debate? How is adding one sentence to clarify _why_ you don’t think it’s bigotry a “great inconvenience” to you? You’re also missing the point that doing this isn’t to avoid a “minimal inconvenience” to me, it’s so that the people you are debating don’t come away thinking you’re a total asshole, and further are more likely to be interested in debating you in the future. > [@](#): > > I cannot take such a crtiticism seriously from someone who starts out a post with the statement "Well, Ryan, the fact of the matter is that you are the single poorest communicator on these boards. " I may imply that a subjective opinion is fact, but you actually stated it was. Fair enough, that’s a legitimate criticism. Still, you have to admit that an inordinate number of debates you enter into end up in screaming matches. How many Pit threads have been opened in your honor? I don’t bring that up to try and convince you to change your opinions, I just think you should reconsider your approach to how you express them. > [@](#): > > No, I’m not. I’m stating that there is nothing inherently malicious in denying same-sex marriage. Suppose that Colin Powell were to run for president. There almost certainly would be people who would not vote for him out of bigotry. But that wouldn’t make not voting for him, in itself, bigotry. Hardly an effective comparison, because having Colin Powell as president of the US is going to have an enormous impact on the daily lives of every citizen in the country, and a significant impact on the lives of people around the globe. Gay marriage will have _no_ impact on the lives of anyone except the couple in question. So it seems to me that denying marriage to gay couples is done purely out of spite. In other words, it is malicious discrimination, and therefor bigotry. Again, if you had made it clearer on page one _why_ you felt this wasn’t bigotry, a great deal of time and effort would have been saved. > [@](#): > > First of all, you are implying that I am arguing against same-sex marriage, which is yet another example of people putting words in my mouth. Considering your previous statements, I expect you to think that too is my fault. > > Secondly, your implication that stereotypes are okay if they are occasionally shown accurate is disturbing. See, you’ve completely missed the point of my “context” argument. Apparently, I should have been clearer. You’re entering a debate about gay marriage, which is a highly emotional topic. You are adressing a gay man, who is going to be more emotionally involved in the topic than normal, because it directly affects him. And you are taking up a position contrary to him, albiet on a minor side issue, the precise definition of “bigot.” Why not preface your remarks with a few disclaimers? “I have nothing against the idea of gay marriage, but technically, I don’t think it is bigotry.” Or, “Good point, but just FTR, I think bigotry has to be malicious discrimination, and there might be some good reasons to be against it.” Instead, you say “While an argument can be made that not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminatory, it absurd to claim that it is bigotry.” Why is it absurd? You don’t say. Most people (and I want to state here that _I am not one of them_) are going to jump to the conclusion that you think it’s not bigotry because it’s okay to discriminate against gays. Why? Because that’s the reason most people arguing against gay marriage use. Of course, you’re not even arguing gay marriage, you’re arguing the precise definition of one word, which is not at all clear from your post. Look, I don’t know how your keyboard works, but mine doesn’t charge by the keystroke. Take a little extra time to flesh out your position, or, if you don’t want to make the effort, just don’t post. Or, of course, keep posting exactly the way you always do, and continue to entirely fail to make your point to anybody who musters the patience to read your posts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-more-progressive-than-u-s/121005.md?page=4)