If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
> liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery > slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid. It isn't. Pity you never learnt logic. > Even though it is indeed valid In your opinion. Go read up on logical fallacies so you can understand *why* the slippery slope tactic is not logically sound, then get back to us. There are lots of highly regarded texts on the subject, some of which were written by extremely conservative individuals. I'm sure you can find one...if you look. |
Ads |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
> liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery > slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid. It isn't. Pity you never learnt logic. > Even though it is indeed valid In your opinion. Go read up on logical fallacies so you can understand *why* the slippery slope tactic is not logically sound, then get back to us. There are lots of highly regarded texts on the subject, some of which were written by extremely conservative individuals. I'm sure you can find one...if you look. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sparky wrote: > >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to >>>>>> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle >>>>>> when it >>>>>> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why >>>> quibble over >>>> nomenclature? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that >>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of >>>>> business >>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being >>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious >>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a >>>> comparison >>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best. >>>> >>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better >>> health benefits, Medicare, etc. >> >> >> >> Let's not go trans species - okay? > > > If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are > people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get > their way this will be the next cause celeb. Ahh ohh! Another "slippery slope" argument. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sparky wrote: > >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to >>>>>> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle >>>>>> when it >>>>>> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why >>>> quibble over >>>> nomenclature? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that >>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of >>>>> business >>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being >>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious >>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a >>>> comparison >>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best. >>>> >>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better >>> health benefits, Medicare, etc. >> >> >> >> Let's not go trans species - okay? > > > If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are > people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get > their way this will be the next cause celeb. Ahh ohh! Another "slippery slope" argument. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: > >> Abeness wrote: >> >>> vince garcia wrote: >>> >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully, >>> and justice must prevail. >>> >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice". >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could >>> they possibly choose otherwise. >> >> >> >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges. >> >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other >>>> even if >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You have a point here. ;-) >>> >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by >>> your hypothesis! >>> >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe >>>> discrimination >>>> is always unconstitutional. >>> >>> >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws. >>> >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the >>>> hell >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice. >>> >>> >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public >>> "fornication" by anyone. >> >> >> >> Although that is being pushed for by some also. >> >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so. >> >> >> >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove >> otherwise. > > > KNOTHEAD! LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: > >> Abeness wrote: >> >>> vince garcia wrote: >>> >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully, >>> and justice must prevail. >>> >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice". >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could >>> they possibly choose otherwise. >> >> >> >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges. >> >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other >>>> even if >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You have a point here. ;-) >>> >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by >>> your hypothesis! >>> >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe >>>> discrimination >>>> is always unconstitutional. >>> >>> >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws. >>> >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the >>>> hell >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice. >>> >>> >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public >>> "fornication" by anyone. >> >> >> >> Although that is being pushed for by some also. >> >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so. >> >> >> >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove >> otherwise. > > > KNOTHEAD! LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
linda wrote:
> The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14, > 1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative > therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against > gay people." Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who experienced it, and later denounced same after (and only after) those in the scientific community and the public raised a big stink about the pseudo science that they were promoting for political reasons? Why yes - I believe it was the very same APA. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
linda wrote:
> The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14, > 1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative > therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against > gay people." Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who experienced it, and later denounced same after (and only after) those in the scientific community and the public raised a big stink about the pseudo science that they were promoting for political reasons? Why yes - I believe it was the very same APA. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
"LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)..." I remember that particular show. That was funny! When he died, the joke going around was that he choked on a pine cone. Freedom is NEVER free! Support our TROOPS! David Thornton IM: Signature powered by Plaxo ... Want a signature like this? Add me to your address book... "Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... | Sparky wrote: | | > Bill Putney wrote: | > | >> Abeness wrote: | >> | >>> vince garcia wrote: | >>> | >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that | >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business | >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being | >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the | >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their | >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. | >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking | >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my | >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might | >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their | >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in | >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully, | >>> and justice must prevail. | >>> | >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice". | >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal | >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more | >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for | >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating | >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on | >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could | >>> they possibly choose otherwise. | >> | >> | >> | >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me | >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges. | >> | >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what | >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not | >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other | >>>> even if | >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to | >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!" | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> You have a point here. ;-) | >>> | >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will | >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact | >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just | >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by | >>> your hypothesis! | >>> | >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from | >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people | >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe | >>>> discrimination | >>>> is always unconstitutional. | >>> | >>> | >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public | >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue | >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to | >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws. | >>> | >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system | >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the | >>>> hell | >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS | >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice. | >>> | >>> | >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is | >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to | >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I | >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. | >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV | >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public | >>> "fornication" by anyone. | >> | >> | >> | >> Although that is being pushed for by some also. | >> | >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to | >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so. | >> | >> | >> | >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government | >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - | >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove | >> otherwise. | > | > | > KNOTHEAD! | | LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel | (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating | the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^) | | Bill Putney | (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my | adddress with the letter 'x') | | | ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- | http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups | ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |