Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 29 2016,09:48) | | Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 29 2016,09:40) | | Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 28 2016,20:37) | | Quote | 277
CLAVDIVSApril 28, 2016 at 6:31 pm
Eugen
If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the issue then why should I be bothered to do it for you?
In kindergarten terms:
– Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays
– The basis of this discrimination is not rational
All the arguments pro- and con- were ventilated thoroughly in Perry v Schwarzenegger. Gay marriage proponents won, bigtime. The judge was totally unimpressed with the anti-gay-marriage side:
– Their “evidentiary presentation was dwarfed” by the pro-gay-marriage side
– They presented only 2 witnesses, one of whom was totally ignored by the judge as “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight”, and the other was only accepted as an expert in a limited area
– They “failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.”
– The ban on same-sex marriage did not pass even the most minimal scrutiny under equal protection law, because it denied a fundamental right—the right to marry the person one chose—without a “legitimate (much less compelling) reason.”
– The anti-gay-marriage side “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.”
– The judge found a ban on gay marriage must “find at least some support in evidence. … Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that share that view.” |
Can Clavdivs be far behind IE? Defending SSM and criticizing Mullings. I like this guy already. |
| Quote | CLAVDIVSApril 29, 2016 at 6:02 am
kairosfocus
You indulged in the most vicious, offensive and unprovoked character attacks on me. I turned the other cheek and politely but firmly told you I would ignore future posts of that kind.
But you did it again, and yet again.
Thus it is your gross incivility and irrationality that terminated discussion. Yes – argumenta ad hominem are logically fallacious and irrational. You know that. So stop doing it |
Followed by a Mullings rant. Then:
| Quote | CLAVDIVSApril 29, 2016 at 7:36 am
kairosfocus @ 310
More argumenta ad hominem.
As if whatever happened to you years ago excuses your rudeness today. Hilarious!
*Ignore* |
And then another Mullings rant. And:
| Quote | CLAVDIVSApril 29, 2016 at 8:09 am
kairosfocus
Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection …
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. |
Clavdivs will be joining Indiana Effigy in bannination shortly. |
It just doesn't appear to be getting any better for Gordon Mullings:
| Quote | ziggy lorencApril 29, 2016 at 8:34 am
KF, with all due respect, I think that you are doing exactly what the article is complaining about. rather than discuss issues with Clavdivs, you use phrases such as:
"Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you."
"First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record."
"Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites — you dare to differ with ‘right thinking people’"
I think that your responses are far out of proportion to Clavdivs’ comments. He appears to be able to discuss fairly with Eugen and others. I saw a similar thing with your interactions with Indiana Effigy. He was able to have a civil discussion with others but not with you. As far as I can tell, there is only one common factor in this behaviour. If you can’t discuss without being abusive, dismissive and hypocritical, it might be better if you took a break from commenting until you have calmed down.
Just some friendly advice from a lady who has seen far too much ugliness than she would care to admit. |
|
Possible GEM response, "Of course there is a common factor, everyone has it in for me!"
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
