RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 193 194 195 196 197 [198] 199 200 201 202 203 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
LarTanner



Posts: 36
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2016,19:29   

Quote (stevestory @ April 28 2016,18:15)
Quote
263

kairosfocus

April 28, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Clavdivs, now you are adding that might and manipulation make the judgement ‘hypocrisy’ too. I know it is painful for me to be so stark, but you have to see the force of what you have been doing on the worldviews platform you have implicitly adopted. Yes, all of this is inherent in the import of evolutionary materialism, its self referential incoherence, radical relativisation of truth and morality, and utter want of an IS that can ground OUGHT. That is why I reject it as self-falsifying and absurd, root and branch. KF

Quote
264
CLAVDIVS

April 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm

kairosfocus

I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction.
derp

KF is applying the Bush Doctrine to CLAVDIVS. CLAVDIVS says he's not a materialist, but he's not not a materialist enough for KF.

These are times of war, ladies and gentlemen, and if KF needs to preserve civilization through excessive measures and suspension of civil liberties, then he's willing to do it....

He'll kill the man to save his soul, but he'll feel real bad it had to come to that.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2016,19:43   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 28 2016,14:25)
Quote
233
NewsApril 28, 2016 at 7:10 am

Based on comment173, Indiana Effigy will have to be effigious somewhere else. He is banned for practising psychiatry without a licence. – News


But it was a good run while it lasted. Another sock bites the dust.

But it appears that Barry has passed the banhammer to Dense and Dreary.


I would like to thank the academy...

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,11:44   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 29 2016,03:43)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 28 2016,14:25)
Quote
233
NewsApril 28, 2016 at 7:10 am

Based on comment173, Indiana Effigy will have to be effigious somewhere else. He is banned for practising psychiatry without a licence. – News


But it was a good run while it lasted. Another sock bites the dust.

But it appears that Barry has passed the banhammer to Dense and Dreary.


I would like to thank the academy...

...and?

Congrats BTW. Great performance. Bravo Sir!!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,11:57   

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,12:10   

Cue 'mafioso-style stalking' in 3...2...

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,12:19   

Even Origenes is coming down on kf:

 
Quote
326
OrigenesApril 29, 2016 at 10:36 am
Kairosfocus,
In a thread titled “The End of Reasonable Debate” you accuse CLAVDIVS of being on a cultural suicide agenda:

Quote
you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning.


You are speculating on CLAVDIV’s motives in a manner that breaches the borders of ad hominem attack and does not further debate.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,12:34   

StephenB hits us with a Wall of Derp too large to copy, but here's a bit:

Quote
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some “gay gene.” Such a gene doesn’t exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,12:36   

Here's a really stunning piece of bullshit from StephenB:

Quote
As I explained, the Judge is biased against traditional social values, and his reasoning (and that of his “expert” witnesses) is laughable. I will just pick the low hanging fruit.
Quote

“Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.”


So what? Christians experience those same problems time every time some stupid judge rules against their religious freedom.


stupd biased judges

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,16:10   

Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2016,12:34)
StephenB hits us with a Wall of Derp too large to copy, but here's a bit:

Quote
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some “gay gene.” Such a gene doesn’t exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process.


linky

Sounds like someone has some personal experience.  

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,19:41   

Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2016,10:34)
StephenB hits us with a Wall of Derp too large to copy, but here's a bit:

 
Quote
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some “gay gene.” Such a gene doesn’t exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process.


linky

Someone please send this to StephenB.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2016,23:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 30 2016,10:41)
Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2016,10:34)
StephenB hits us with a Wall of Derp too large to copy, but here's a bit:

   
Quote
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some “gay gene.” Such a gene doesn’t exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process.


linky

Someone please send this to StephenB.

Isn't the standard response is to ask at what age Stephen made the choice to be heterosexual.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,01:46   

Or how hard was it to reverse his first choice?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,11:32   

Quote
343
ziggy lorencApril 29, 2016 at 9:11 pm
KairosFocus — “This clearly reflects the impact of radical secular humanist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism, which has no root level entity IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And so many imagine is and ought is unbridgeable with the “scientific” is taking precedence. Where as a direct consequence moral government is reduced to views and values, taken to be subjective entities. Consequently, there is a rising tide of manipulation and might making ‘truth’ ‘right’ ‘value’ and more.

In short we are now increasingly in amorality and nihilism without realising it.”


I tried reading your words but I couldn’t make sense of them. What are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of organized, secular, humanist, materialist, Darwinist conspiracy at play here?


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,11:37   

For some reason, nothing gets KF excited like dude-on-dude action.

Look how much effort he put into this reply.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,14:26   

Quote (stevestory @ April 30 2016,12:37)
For some reason, nothing gets KF excited like dude-on-dude action.

Look how much effort he put into this reply.

It's as if he knows nothing about Ancient Greek culture and cultural practices.  The philosophers responsible for all that 'right reason' and 'unchanging moral principles' sure did get up to a whole bunch of shit that torques him up way past the safe level.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,16:41   

Quote (stevestory @ April 30 2016,11:37)
For some reason, nothing gets KF excited like dude-on-dude action.

Look how much effort he put into this reply.

Damn.  If that didn't have Kariosflatus' name in the title it could pass for a batshit77 drone-a-thon.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,21:21   

Quote
402
ziggy lorencApril 30, 2016 at 7:36 pm
KF — “zL, you know you are misrepresenting what I have said all along during the thread [and in an EXTREMELY offensive way], and that speaks volumes on your motives.”

If I have misrepresented what you have said, I apologize. But if it was so, it was due to your often obscure and rambling way of writing, not something intentional.

This being said, I don’t see what the differences between race and sexual orientation have to do with anything I have said. I have said from the start that I am not in favour of homosexuality and same sex marriage. But that I am honest enough to admit that this is for purely religious. And that in spite of my beliefs, I can’t force myself to get worked up over the issue. Is that what has got you upset with me?
linky

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,23:50   

Apparently, the fastest way to derail a thread at UD is to mention same sex marriage. This thread, which started out about the left's use of terms like bigot and racist to stifle discussion, is now into full bore homosexuality and same sex marriage being the downfall of society.

They are so predictable.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,15:00   

Quote
467
AletaMay 1, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t say “in my opinion, it is wrong ….”

Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage?

You write,

As you progress in your analysis, other natural truths will become clear to you—unless you are so emotionally invested in secularism that reason cannot surface, or unless your conscience has not been informed by reason

Arrogant, condescending self-righteousness is not a rational argument.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,15:06   

Quote
446
ziggy lorencMay 1, 2016 at 10:15 am
Mr. Murray —
“Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread.”


You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him.


lol

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,16:03   

Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2016,15:06)
Quote
446
ziggy lorencMay 1, 2016 at 10:15 am
Mr. Murray —
“Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread.”


You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him.


lol

I hope she reconsiders. I like it when KF gets a spanking.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,16:06   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 01 2016,16:03)
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2016,15:06)
Quote
446
ziggy lorencMay 1, 2016 at 10:15 am
Mr. Murray —
“Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread.”


You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him.


lol

I hope she reconsiders. I like it when KF gets a spanking.

Even people from the ID camp are spanking KF. Can a claim of on the ground stalking be far off?

Quote
OrigenesMay 1, 2016 at 1:38 pm
Kairosfocus #456,

I agree with you that materialism cannot ground morality, personhood, rationality, life and what have you. Materialism is totally self-referentially incoherent. I honestly don’t see how we could agree more on this.

However, in my view, that fact has absolutely no bearing on issues like SSM. None. Zip.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,17:55   

One of us, StephenB or me*, has their timeline of American history out-of-joint. From the The End of Reasonable Debate thread:
Quote
Rights do not come from the state or from consensus opinion. Both of those sources provide standards that change daily and are, therefore, unreliable. Consensus decisions will promote slavery at one time and anti-slavery another time, depending on the public mood. Interestingly, slavery was abolished only when Martin Luther King Jr. asserted, rightly, that slavery violates the natural moral law and that the majority opinion is irrelevant.

UD link, my emphasis.
*It could be me, I am neither American nor a historian. Anyone care to put us right?

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,19:29   

If slavery violates 'natural moral law' it seems odd that God would nevertheless offer handy tips on how to mistreat them.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,20:03   

in comment 485 mr B claims that so-called gay marriage...well, i'll just let him babble:

Quote
485
StephenBMay 1, 2016 at 5:49 pm
Aleta
Quote
Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t say “in my opinion, it is wrong ….”
Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage?


Because your knowledge of slavery is reasonably complete while your knowledge of the role of marriage is incomplete. Thus, your conscience is not sufficiently informed by reason to make moral judgments on the matter.

So-called “gay marriage cannot be marriage. It isn’t real. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant between a man and a woman that is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. This covenant is a product of the laws of God and nature. A homosexual union simply cannot qualify as that kind of institution.

Heterosexual marriage promotes the common good because it elevates the nuclear family as the primary institution of society. Accordingly, it reflects the proper purpose of sex and establishes the limits of how it ought to be used. The so-called union of “gay marriage” cannot play that role at all. It simply trivializes and perverts the real thing. Accordingly, it harms society in many ways:

First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @342.. No one has refuted that study. Thus, there can be no principle of “equality” at stake because there can be no second or third kind of marriage. There can be only one kind of marriage.

Worse, gay marriage celebrates and justifies the homosexual lifestyle. When the secular state promotes this perversity, especially when it brainwashes children to accept it at an early age and pushes them to become a part of this perverse movement. In fact, gay marriage violates the common good of all members of society by frustrating the states purpose for benefiting heterosexual marriage. If the latter is just one among many, then there is no reason why the state cannot marginalize parents by usurping their role to raise children.

To grant a right to one person is take away the right of another. This is true in all cases. To grant one man the right to a free college education is to take away another man’s right to keep some of his tax money. Similarly, to grant homosexuals the right to marry is to take away societies right to give heterosexual marriage a special place.

There is no question of equality here becasue something that is unreal does not deserve the same consideration as something that is real. Gay marriage cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage because it isn’t real. Thus, the question of equal protection under the law is not even relevant.


and then in 486 he complains about Activist judges! So he's going for some kind of Dipshit Bingo.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,07:53   

StephenB:

Quote

To grant a right to one person is take away the right of another. This is true in all cases. To grant one man the right to a free college education is to take away another man’s right to keep some of his tax money. Similarly, to grant homosexuals the right to marry is to take away societies right to give heterosexual marriage a special place.


Since the discussion made an analogy between slavery and anti-SSM, I guess StephenB's analysis would have to be that granting one man his freedom per se is taking away another man's right to exploit the first man's labor without compensation. Which is, all in all, a good thing. And likewise for SB's construction of rights given and taken for SSM. At basis, I think society doesn't have rights... it is the expression of the individual rights of members of society that have meaning. And one individual's urge to deny rights to another doesn't rise to a moral imperative, other than in curbing that aberrant urge of the rights-denier.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,07:58   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 01 2016,22:03)
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2016,15:06)
Quote
446
ziggy lorencMay 1, 2016 at 10:15 am
Mr. Murray —
“Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread.”


You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him.


lol

I hope she reconsiders. I like it when KF gets a spanking.

So does KF, but not in the way you mean.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 193 194 195 196 197 [198] 199 200 201 202 203 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]