|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the Threshold of Bigotry | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do lesbians have wives? Yes, some of them.
How could you tell? If they are married to a woman, that should clue you right in.
And how do two gay men decide who is the wife? A married man is somebody's husband. Two men who are married to one another are each other's husbands. There is no wife, since a wife is a married woman. Male spouse=husband. Female spouse=wife. This should be plainly obvious so you are either playing dumb as an evasion tactic or there is something psychological blocking such obvious relationships in your mind. It is not your ideas on changing the name of marriages to unions and giving them to gays that people take as an indication you have stepped into the landscape of bigotry, it is this kind of talk that shows some kind of stubborn cognitive blindness to the obvious. It is talk about how gays should be able to be unionised and that they can marry if their church/wherever permits it, but that they can't marry because they don't have the right equipment, that it doesn't fall under your own interpretation of marriage shows an intolerance to ideas other than your own. Whether or not you are intolerant of other ideas in this manner I cannot say. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Mod writes:
Now we're getting somewhere. I set out to prove that the gays were after more than full access to all the legal benefits of state-sanctioned civil unions. That was their claim”that the bigots we're keeping them from having all the rights and privileges granted by the law to straight people. But even gaining that is not enough for them. They want to steal a titular prize they don't qualify for. They want to get "married," too, as if they were doing it with opposite sexes. It is not your ideas on changing the name of marriages to unions and giving them to gays that people take as an indication you have stepped into the landscape of bigotry, it is this kind of talk that shows some kind of stubborn cognitive blindness to the obvious. It is talk about how gays should be able to be unionised and that they can marry if their church/wherever permits it, but that they can't marry because they don't have the right equipment, that it doesn't fall under your own interpretation of marriage shows an intolerance to ideas other than your own. And so who is the bigot here? It's not an issue about denying the gays anything. If two men get civilly united and there is no wife as a result, then they are not married. (Wives are always females in my Vocabulary 101.) They can be something else, though, that applies to same-sex civil unions. I've offered a few words as candidates for your Vocabulary 101. They were stupid, of course. But why can't they have their own title for be civilly united homosexuals and call it, say, "domestic partnerships"? Why can't they get DPed? If they backed off this one niggling detail they might garner more respect from the general population. I make this differentiation only because "marriage," to me, and to a whole lot of other good people, implies a civilly united man and woman. Just because the gays have come out the closet and are now demanding that marriage is not what it was always thought to be doesn't change the meaning of the word one damn bit. There must be something intrinsically bigoted about me. If I met two men on the street and introduced myself to them, and if one of them relied, "Hi, my name is Chuck, and this is my wife Larry." I would probably blow a little fuse somewhere in my brain, blink, smile, and say, "Pleased me meet you both, especially the lovely wife." And then I would beat a hasty retreat for home and laugh my silly ass off. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Now we're getting somewhere. I set out to prove that the gays were after more than full access to all the legal benefits of state-sanctioned civil unions. That was their claim”that the bigots we're keeping them from having all the rights and privileges granted by the law to straight people. But even gaining that is not enough for them. They want to steal a titular prize they don't qualify for. They want to get "married," too, as if they were doing it with opposite sexes. No Hoot, they want the rights and protections and they don't want to be treated differently. Your scheme works fine in principle, it just wouldn't work in practice.
And so who is the bigot here? It's not an issue about denying the gays anything. When you say that they can't be married to one another because one needs a wife in a marriage and that they don't have 'hitchable' equipment and other such things, it is demonstrating that you have some intolerance towards the idea of simply allowing homosexuals to get married. If you were totally tolerant of the idea, and you want to avoid denying somebody their rights, I don't see the problem with simply allowing them to marry.
But why can't they have their own title for be civilly united homosexuals and call it, say, "domestic partnerships"? Why can't they get DPed? Why have different titles for different people? Is that not arbitrary discrimination? Also: DPed, unless you are using the phrase, does mean something else. The one challenge you have yet to meet, you have been busy at trying to evade it for many posts: If I proposed that black people shouldn't get married, as per the understanding of marriage at the founding of the USA. They should be afforded the same rights though - they should have their own unions: Negriage...would you support me? If not, how is your argument different?
If they backed off this one niggling detail they might garner more respect from the general population. And if you didn't insist that it was a niggling detail, you would be less likely perceived as a bigot. I said it before, I'll say it again: Why don't heterosexual people have a different title, and gay people 'married'? The only reason you'd have a problem is if you are trying to hold on to some titular prize. The end result is this: If there was a way to get the exact same rights as marriage, but not get to be legally called 'married', I'm sure many homosexual couples would be delighted...and they are. However, these partnerships aren't necessarily respected by law in other states so as it stands, any time such an arrangement is made in the US it is always inferior to 'marriage'.
I make this differentiation only because "marriage," to me, and to a whole lot of other good people, implies a civilly united man and woman. Just because the gays have come out the closet and are now demanding that marriage is not what it was always thought to be doesn't change the meaning of the word one damn bit. And marriage, to other people does not mean that. Since when did your usage of the word have to be the final word? You paint a Hoot_Mon tinted view of history: Marriage has not always meant a civilly united man and woman. For lots of time it has meant a union blessed by the church alone, sometimes marriage was simply a state you were in if the community you lived in agreed you were married and you lived with your partner. A fair amount of marriage has simply been political expediency. Plenty of history (especially US history) has had marriage as meaning a 'civil union between one white boy aged 14 or over and as many white girls (aged 12-24) as he can, wherein the women sacrifice their rights to own property or control their own wages.'
There must be something intrinsically bigoted about me. If I met two men on the street and introduced myself to them, and if one of them relied, "Hi, my name is Chuck, and this is my wife Larry." I would probably blow a little fuse somewhere in my brain, blink, smile, and say, "Pleased me meet you both, especially the lovely wife." And then I would beat a hasty retreat for home and laugh my silly ass off. Well that is pretty bigoted, and the cognitive blindness I pointed out is in effect again. It's like you are determined to paint homosexuals in a negative light (ie., prejudice). I'm sure some homosexual couples do refer to one another as husband/wife, but they are the exception as far as I can tell. Chuck does not have a wife, so he would introduce you to his husband, Larry. Ah well, the thread is over now. If you don't understand by now, it's probably because you can't understand. The dissonance it would take to reconcile such an alien (to you) point of view seems like to much right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Yes, lesbians have wives. The meaning of the word "wife" is not "someone married to a man." Instead, "wife" means "a woman who is married." If two women get married, neither is the "husband." Similarly, when two men get married, neither is the "wife." Now, answer the question: What is it about the marriage contract that requires the couple be of the opposite sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Of course. Please don't play dumb. A "wife" is simply a woman who is married. Therefore, if two women are married to each other, there are two wives.
quote: Neither. Please don't play dumb. When two women get married, there is no "husband." What is it about the marriage contract that requires the couple to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man? Be specific.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. "Pretending"? Who's pretending? Please don't play dumb. When two women get married, they are both wives. A "wife" is a woman who is married. It doesn't depend upon the sex of the person to whom she is married, only that she is married.
quote: No, Judy would the wife of Jim but Chuck would be the "husband" of Larry. Chuck, being a married male, is a "husband." Please don't play dumb.
quote: Huh? Are you saying kids don't know if they are boys or girls? Please don't play dumb.
quote: No...it's too easy. Instead, a simple request: Please stop playing dumb. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Incorrect. You set out to legitimize your bigotry in some Rube Goldberg contraption of evasion, disingenuousness, and "gotcha!" game-playing. You want to be able to say that those who wish to allow marriage for all regardless of the sex of the participants are the real "bigots" rather than you, who wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. We know this because long before you started this thread, you were shown in specific detail why it is that "civil union" does not grant full legal rights of marriage. Not only is it impossible theoretically (unconstitutional by Brown v. Board of Education wherein "separate but equal" is proscribed), it is been impossible practically (every single attempt to create an "equal" contract to marriage has failed...they are all deficient.)
quote: Incorrect. You are calling a sub-standard contract "the same." Since it isn't the same, why should it be considered "enough"? If you truly want equality, if you truly do not wish to deny gays that which you demand for yourself, then the only solution is to have a single contract for everyone. Since you don't want a single contract, since you want a separate contract, since separate contracts are always unequal, then you give the lie to your claim. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Huh? Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? Marriage isn't a fundamental right? Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? Gays can be excluded from the constitutional process? Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? You can criminalize actions based upon sexual orientation? If not, then how is it gay people "don't qualify" for marriage? Be specific.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man? Be specific.
quote: The one who wishes to deny to others that which they demand for themselves. How does allowing marriage to all without regard to the sex of the participants deny marriage to people of any sex who wish to get married? Be specific.
quote: You're denying them marriage. "Civil unions" are not equivalent. They never can be. Every single attempt to make an equivalent "civil union" has failed. Even when directly ordered to create an identical contract, the "civil union" contract has always been deficient. And when you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.
quote: What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man? Be specific.
quote: Indeed. So if a woman is married, how is she not a "wife." What is it about the person she's married to being a woman that changes things? A "wife" is a woman who is married. Why would that change if she is married to a woman? Be specific.
quote: "They can be something else, though, that applies to interracial civil unions." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? But "civil unions" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.
quote: But it isn't up to gay people to come up with a new word for "marriage." That word already exists, it applies to gay people just as much as it does to straight people. What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man? Be specific. Since you're the one who wants to make a distinction, then you're the one who needs to come up with a word to describe your "special friendship." Since absolutely nobody is confused by the use of the term "marriage" to refer to a same-sex couple, it is your burden to come up with a new term to set yourself apart from what everybody else understands.
quote: "But why can't they have their own title for be [sic] civilly united interracials and call it, say, 'domestic partnerships'? Why can't they get DPed?" If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? This has been explained to you numerous times. "Domestic partnerships" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Every attempt to create an equal "domestic partnership" to marriage has failed. Every single one has been deficient, denying rights to gays that are demanded for straights. Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.
quote: "If the interracial couples backed off this one niggling detail, they might garner more respect from the general population." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? After all, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population thought interracial marriage should be outlawed. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? They should not have had the right of marriage recognized? There can never be equality without the single name applying to all. "civil unions" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Every attempt to create an equal "civil union" to marriage has failed. Every single one has been deficient, denying rights to gays that are demanded for straights. Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.
quote: "I make this differentiation only because 'marriage,' to me, and to a whole lot of other good people, implies a civilly united couple of the same race." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? Are you saying the law needs to be beholden to the bigots? The law requires a single contract since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. Every attempt to create a "separate but equal" contract has failed. Since it cannot work in theory and it does not work in practice, the only solution is to have a single contract for all. Since you refuse to accept this, it gives the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.
quote: "Just because the interracial couples have become uppity and are demanding that marriage is not what it was always thought to be doesn't change the meaning of the word one damn bit." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? They should not have had the right of marriage recognized?
quote: Indeed, that would be something to blink at since Chuck would never introduce his husband as his "wife." A "wife," as you already have stated, is a married woman. Since Larry is man and not a woman, that means he isn't a "wife." He's a "husband." A married man is called a "husband." Larry is a man. Larry is married. Larry is a "husband." Larry is married to Chuck. Larry is Chuck's "husband." Now here's the question: If you met two men on the street and introduced yourself to them and one of them replied, "Hi, my name is Chuck, and this is my husband Larry," would you "blow a little fuse somewhere in your brain"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Mod writes:
Well, then I'm intolerant towards the idea of simply allowing homosexuals to get married. I'll fess up to that, because that is not my idea of marriage. Why are the gays intolerant of my take on marriage? Doesn't intolerance work both ways? Whose opinion is more intolerant”the gays' or the straights'?
When you say that they can't be married to one another because one needs a wife in a marriage and that they don't have 'hitchable' equipment and other such things, it is demonstrating that you have some intolerance towards the idea of simply allowing homosexuals to get married. If you were totally tolerant of the idea, and you want to avoid denying somebody their rights, I don't see the problem with simply allowing them to marry. Why have different titles for different people? Is that not arbitrary discrimination?
Then why do we differentiate between the races? "Two robbers held up the First State Bank today; one was white and the other black." Isn't that the same kind of discrimination?
Why don't heterosexual people have a different title, and gay people 'married'? The only reason you'd have a problem is if you are trying to hold on to some titular prize.
Well, yes. So I guess I'm bigoted for that. Which one of us is more right than the other?
It's like you are determined to paint homosexuals in a negative light (ie., prejudice). I'm sure some homosexual couples do refer to one another as husband/wife, but they are the exception as far as I can tell. Chuck does not have a wife, so he would introduce you to his husband, Larry.
Oh, Mod, that doesn't help much! But you are probably right about my attitude: I haven't yet adjusted to Chuck's husband or wife Larry. I suppose I am standing on someone's threshold of bigotry. But it doesn't seem like it to me. If Chuck and Larry came over to my house and held hands on the couch, I would notice more than if John and Linda came over to my place and help hands on the couch. I would be dishonest to claim anything else. It starts there, this bigotry of mine. My psyche won't let go of it. It's a bad case of homophobia; contagious, too, like the common cold. In fact there's a goddamn epidemic of it.
Ah well, the thread is over now. If you don't understand by now, it's probably because you can't understand. The dissonance it would take to reconcile such an alien (to you) point of view seems like to much right now.
OK, so I'm standing on your threshold of bigotry. Chuck and Larry will eventually get everything they want. Marriage, too, I suppose. But some of us bigots will go on saying: "Gosh, a man and a man don't seem at all like a man and woman." But if I try hard enough maybe I can see that it doesn't matter for the sake of human progress. I hope Mr. and Mrs. Chuck and Larry will ride proudly in their wedding coach, and I won't utter another peep about how that seems just a bit odd to me. (In return I hope the gays will support polygamy and all other "harmless" abberations of the marriage contract.) Thanks to all who participated. This thread has cured me of my bigotry. Let's close it down before Rrhain another redundancy attack. ”HM Shut up he explained. ”Ring Lardner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Well, not exactly. From Oxford's:
Indeed, that would be something to blink at since Chuck would never introduce his husband as his "wife." A "wife," as you already have stated, is a married woman. Since Larry is man and not a woman, that means he isn't a "wife." quote:Whose dictionary are you working out of? ”HM Shut up he explained. ”Ring Lardner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Hoot Moon writes:
Whose dictionary are you working out of? I know this is directed at Rrhain but i get a headache when people start using dictionaries like this. Hoot Moon, how about Merriam Webster?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/husband writes: 1: a male partner in a marriage
Besides, it dosen't matter what the dictionary says. Edited by rbp, : No reason given. Edited by rbp, : Corrected up Hoots name, added subtitle Edited by rbp, : Corrected Rrhains name
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Why are the gays intolerant of my take on marriage? Because they don't have to answer to you, that's why. Leave them alone and let them live their lives as they please. They are not making any request of you but to get out of the way. You don't have to like it. You don't have to approve. You don't have to do anything. Nothing, nothing at all. Just don't get in the way. How are you unable to distinguish your interference with their freedom of action and their interference with your interfering with their freedom of action? If they were demanding that you pay for their weddings you'd have a point. But they ask nothing of you except to be left alone. And for Pete's sake, would you please answer Rrhain's questions already. Kindly Were Christians ever to speak in non-ambiguous terms and listen with critical ears there would soon be no Christians for lack of agreement as to God plan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Because they don't have to answer to you, that's why. Leave them alone and let them live their lives as they please. They are not making any request of you but to get out of the way. You don't have to like it. You don't have to approve. You don't have to do anything. Nothing, nothing at all. Just don't get in the way. It seems there's a little bit more to it than that... I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage, but its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot". Sure, I don't think that marriage's definition includes same sex ones and I'll argue against opposing opinion. But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list. I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
rbp writes:
You mean using dictionaries for looking up the definitions of words? I know this is directed at Rrhain but i get a headache when people start using dictionaries like this. ”HM Shut up he explained. ”Ring Lardner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
You've got it backwards. They are interfering with my interference of their freedom of action to interfere with my freedom of action to interfere. How are you unable to distinguish your interference with their freedom of action and their interference with your interfering with their freedom of action? ”HM Shut up he explained. ”Ring Lardner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: "Well, then I'm intolerant towards the idea of simply allowing interracial couples to get married. I'll fess up to that, because that is not my idea of marriage.[/quote] If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: They're not. Nobody is trying to make you marry somebody you don't want to be. They are not trying to deny you something they demand for themselves. This is in contrast to you. You are trying to deny them something you demand for yourself.
quote: No. You're trying to stop people from doing something you want to do yourself. The other side is not trying to stop you from doing what they want to do themselves. How does you advocating a hindrance and their advocating freedom equate to "working both ways"?
quote: This isn't about "gays or straights." This is about tolerance and bigotry. We have you on the one side, trying to deny others that which you demand for yourself. Then there are those on the other side who want to allow everyone to share in the same contract. How does freedom equate to "intolerance"? How does denial equate to "tolerance"?
quote: Huh? We don't differentiate between the races when it comes to marriage. That was the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia: Marriage isn't about the race of the participants. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote: Not at all. That is merely a descriptor. What would be discrimination would be if one of them received a different sentence due to race even though they did the same crime.
quote: Since the Constitution is our guide for what is right and wrong when it comes to the law, that would mean that you are in the wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment insists upon equal treatment under the law. Are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people?
quote: You want to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. What's not to understand?
quote: But that's irrelevant. Nobody cares what you think of their love for each other. The only thing that matters is whether or not you want to deny them the same rights that you demand for yourself. Go ahead and not enjoy the prospect of loving someone of your own sex. Nobody is trying to make you.
quote: Huh? There is no "Mrs." It's "Mr. and Mr." There is no woman, thus there is no "wife" and there is no "Mrs." and nobody is pretending to be anything. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: You do realize that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, yes? You're making the same argument as creationists trying to say that evolution is "just a theory" as if by "theory," one means "educated guess" simply because you can find that as a definition for "theory" in a dictionary. If Chuck comes up to you and asks, "Do you know my husband?" you'd be thinking of a man, wouldn't you? You'd still think that Chuck was a man, wouldn't you? So since even you aren't confused (and let's not play dumb and pretend you would be), then how can you claim that there is any confusion anywhere? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024