Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 168 (365618)
11-23-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
11-23-2006 1:55 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
quote:
Actually that's not necessarily so....
You are correct, and that might be what is going on here. After things get repetitive I stop reading very carefully, and so I miss things even though I think that I know what is going on. My fault, really. I shouldn't chime in unless I've been reading carefully. But I am also kind of curious why people think child sex is wrong; I am kind of a dick and like to muck things up sometimes.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 1:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 3:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 168 (365619)
11-23-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:23 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
quote:
No. I'd prefer that he substantiate his position that consent is meaningless and irrelevant.
I dunno. I figured that it's because he thinks its obvious why. Sort of why I think consent is meaningful and relevant -- if someone were to ask me why I think that, I'mnot sure what answered I'd give.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 168 (365620)
11-23-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:33 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
Sort of why I think consent is meaningful and relevant -- if someone were to ask me why I think that, I'mnot sure what answered I'd give.
"I don't want to be raped." Seems sufficient to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:38 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4763 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 154 of 168 (365621)
11-23-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Well, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that most homosexuals feel as though their homosexual urges are completely biological. They feel that it is something they cannot change and have used that belief to achieve parity with the womens' sufferage movement and the racial equality movements.
Perhaps some do that but it is not necessary. You "chose to believe" in Jesus as your Lord and you expect the government, businesses, and citizenry to treat you the same as they treat those who follow any other religion. In fact, I think you would argue for the rights of a Hindu despite his denial of your God.
You can't expact that and then argue for denial of rights to others based on their choice of a consensual sexual partner. By your standards he isn not sinning any more than the Hindu.
This argue is predicated upon the assumption that you do not believe we should repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I could be wrong....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 168 (365622)
11-23-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:35 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
Oh. Holmes is right, I am confused about this thread. I thought the topic was why people should be allowed to have consensual homosexual relationships.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 168 (365623)
11-23-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:35 PM


But more about this "consent" thing....
Come to think of it, I'm required to do all sorts of things I don't want. Why should sex be any different?

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 3:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 168 (365624)
11-23-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 1:44 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I viewed as individual expression of their thoughts and feelings, not a team sport.
Heheheh... I was criticized heavily by at least one of the posters for not treating this all as team sport (a while back).
I don't see that many homosexuals view marriage as important to their personal affectation. I see them viewing as an important beachhead to win in the overall war against traditionalism.
Again, I'd have to ask how many gays you actually know to make such a claim. I can see how that might appear to you, but its not realistic. I would agree that some view it as an important beachhead... but that's beside the point.
But from what we know of tradition, dating as far back as the fertile mesopotamian region, man and wife were given a ceremony by a holy man.
Not always, not even in the US. In Holland it has to be done by someone who is NOT religious (that would have to be done afterward). In the US I've known more than one that has simply had civil ceremonies. All you need is a judge. This is to ignore one of the longest traditions of the sea which is marriage by captain's of ships.
But homosexuals claim they were born that way from the get-go. If that's true, why is that placed on a pedestal as if it were some sort of achievement?
We are going in circles. People like Americans and Irish celebrate that thing they were born with. Heck even twins, red heads, and left handed people can be found celebrate their inborn characteristics.
But "Gay Realty" makes as much sense, from their own point of view, as "Asian Realty." It doesn't make any sense.
It means they won't get hassled or questioned about their life by members of that business, and that the money will go to grow the community. It makes sense, even if I am not very happy with that attitude.
You and I both know that most homosexuals have never been so much as looked upon with contempt, rather than beaten.
That is a bizarre assertion which does not exactly make me happy. I've told you I've known and have myself been threatened. I do not know one straight person who has been targeted for violence because they are straight. I cannot tell you direct statistics, but it has to beat the numbers of straights beaten and killed. It is a pretty common experience.
As far as your examples of people raped by homosexuals, that is different. Rape is a different issue altogether. I myself was raped/sexually assaulted by a guy. That is something totally different than a person targeting you for a beating for who you are (or they perceive you to be). It is also much different than societal norms which are accepting of such beatings and deaths.
I am not claiming that gays do not rape and kill. I'm stating that gays get targeted because they are gay. People generally do not get targeted for a beating because they are straight.
It was acceptable in Greece, Rome, and is acceptable in a few Middle Eastern countries. I know of no other civilization that has accepted homosexuality, especially way back then.
Are you kidding? It was generally not considered as anything worthy of notice all over the place. In Japan it was allowed within samurai ranks just the same, so it wasn't even just a low class thing. If you want to know why it is re-emerging now, maybe just trace to why it began to disappear, where its roots were and what has happened more recently to change those facts.
My argument would be that with the advent of secular democracy, civil rights have become more important and religious tenets have shifted more into the background. Civil rights tend to encourage individualism and reduce parentalism. That has led to questioning of all sorts of repressed behaviors.
Intriguingly this has not been completely successful. Progressives have tried to hold onto parentalism especially regarding sexuality. Initially homosexuality was still repressed but that has given way somewhat while other sexual outlets have been demonized instead.
If you turn back time, you can make the connection between homosexuality and the fall of empires.
Heheheh. I don't think so. That is a thread all in itself. As a good quick example Rome fell only after embracing Xianity and rejecting homosexuality.
I could just turn the argument around on you that if pederasty was so prevalent and widely accepted, why can't it be again?
It could with the exception that it runs into parental and individual rights. Child slavery would be outlawed on the principle of individual rights alone. Open pederasty could theoretically exist, but the rights of parents would have to be maintained and my guess is most would NOT want their kids doing it. Thus laws would end up covering that to some extent as well. But there is no inherent reason why it couldn't happen again. My guess is the world wouldn't end.
I'd say best to stay off the sex with minors issue. Most here can't seem to handle a discussion on it without freaking out.
Religious zealots embrace the stereotype of killing people? First of all, religion is so broad that you can't indict all of them. I would dare say that there are many Buddhist zealots who kill no one, while there are many Islamic zealots that kill lots of people.
This is true. I should have specified militant religious zealots.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 1:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 158 of 168 (365625)
11-23-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:31 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
My fault, really. I shouldn't chime in unless I've been reading carefully.
Heheh... I can't say anything. I just totally did the same thing in another thread with schraf. At the very least you were still accurate and your recommendation would be useful. My comment was way off base.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 168 (365626)
11-23-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:44 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
Come to think of it, I'm required to do all sorts of things I don't want. Why should sex be any different?
Sigh. Why is it impossible to have a thread even tangentally related to rape without some man popping up with a sexual-entitlement pity party?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 3:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 168 (365627)
11-23-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 3:10 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
I dunno. You should ask those men if and when they show up on this thread. I just wanna know why some people are asked to justify every detail of their moral beliefs when the askers either don't feel they need to justify their beliefs, or when their justifications are based on ass-poor reasoning.
I, too, support the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual activity; I am in no hurry to repeal laws against child sex. I can even explain why I hold these positions, but I am almost afraid to; one thing I have learned here at EvC is that Americans are incapable of having a reasonable conversation about sex, and, being an American myself, I fear that I might not be an exception to that general rule.
On the other hand, stupid conversations can be fun, too, and as along as the conversation has degenerated into stupidity I can't be faulted for going along with everyone else.
-
Back to the general topic:
If nemesis does feel that there are more important considerations than "consent" in determining sexual morality and he does tell us what these are, I hope that we see his challengers willing to explain why they feel consent should outweigh his considerations if and when they demand he justify his considerations. That is all I have been trying to say.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 6:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 161 of 168 (365638)
11-23-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Silent H
11-23-2006 5:23 AM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
holmes writes:
Appealing to current legal definitions is NOT appropriate for making an argument, particularly when the whole point is that laws need to be changed for the specific group in question (gays).
Holmes, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in terms of philosophical la-la land like you. But if you go back and read the responses leading up to NJ's comparason between homosexual relationship and pedophilia, the argument wasn't about gay marriage or the legality of homosexual acts. The argument was leaning toward the moral issue with homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults (which I still don't understand why you think that's a smoke screen). When crashfrog and I refer to consent, we meant both legal and moral consent. NJ then compared homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults to pedophilia, which I pointed out is nothing more than poisoning the well. There is absolutely no connection between sex acts between 2 consenting adults and sex acts between an adult and a child. The only reason I can think of why NJ (in his god-fearing mindset) thinks there is a connection is if gay people can't give legal or moral consent.
Currently homosexual marriage is still NOT legal. We are wanting to change it.
But marriage wasn't what we were discussing at the time. NJ deliberately made the comparason between homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia after he said something about the gay "life style". Nothing to do with marriage.
Its called a reductio ad absurdum. Its a valid technique and NJ employs it to good effect. It is not "poisoning the well" unless one assumes that one must be absolutely right and so in no need to answer his point regarding the argument.
All right, point taken. Again, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in the deep la-la land like you. Whatever it is, he deliberately compared gay people with children.
Normally I wouldn't care, but you guys happen to be on my side of this argument and are really looking ignorant.
I'll tell you this much, I never quite understand philosophers like yourself. I simply don't understand why introducing a theme that has nothing to do with the subject a valid argument.
Two consenting adults having sex has nothing to do with an adult raping a child no matter how you look at it. I don't care if you have the bulk of the philosophy community behind you, there is no connection between 2 consenting adults having sex and an adult raping a child.
Further I did not in any way claim there were no ways around NJ's argument. The only thing which is NOT valid, is to simply appeal to current law. That is not argument it is merely a non sequitor.
All right, fair enough. Leaving the law out of the argument, would you say that comparing homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia valid?
Gay marriage is a new concept and it is equally a change in the traditional definition. It raises the question (for some) of if a traditional social/legal definition can or should be changed, if other methods allow for equal legal protection?
This ignorant but tolerant liberal is reminded of segregation and how the concept of "seperate but equal" was used to provide so-called "legal protection" to the negros. It failed miserably and only resulted in much intolerance.
But what do I know? I can't write philosophy papers in obscure philosophical language like some. What I offer is my sincere tolerance and love for my fellow men and women, which is more than comparing 2 consenting adults to children and dogs.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 5:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 6:55 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 164 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 6:55 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 7:11 PM Taz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 168 (365640)
11-23-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 3:44 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
If nemesis does feel that there are more important considerations than "consent" in determining sexual morality and he does tell us what these are, I hope that we see his challengers willing to explain why they feel consent should outweigh his considerations if and when they demand he justify his considerations.
Fair enough. I'm hoping he indeed returns to tell us all why issues of consent are something he finds completely irrelevant to sex. Without consent, how does he detect rape, for instance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 3:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 168 (365641)
11-23-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
11-23-2006 5:33 PM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
Holmes, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in terms of philosophical la-la land like you.
I wish you wouldn't refer to it as lala land and I kind of wish you wouldn't put yourself down like that. This is simple logic and it is useful in daily life. It is probably just a matter of experience analyzing arguments.
But if you go back and read the responses leading up to NJ's comparason between homosexual relationship and pedophilia
I've read it and I have understood it. He is not comparing gays to pedophiles. If anything he is saying that pedophiles are comparing themselves to gays using an argument the other poster was providing. He is asking for a response, and is due one.
If you cannot understand that this is what he was doing, then there isn't much more I can say. It is pretty simple.
I don't care if you have the bulk of the philosophy community behind you, there is no connection between 2 consenting adults having sex and an adult raping a child.
Well I am unsure anyone has ever argued that, not even NAMBLA. But I'm also not sure how one can argue there simply is no connection between anything no matter what anyone says. Its possible you might be wrong, right?
would you say that comparing homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia valid?
This is wayyyyy too vague of a question for me to answer properly. It is also, in its own way, a loaded question, for which I am wayyyyyy too smart to answer.
Given that pedophilia was treated as equal in legality and social standing to any other sexuality until the recent past, and is still equal in some parts of the world (and in the US depending on the state), clearly it is validly COMPARABLE to other sexualities by other people.
I would never EQUATE homosexuality with any other sexuality because it is what it is. Just as any other sexuality is what it is. No sexuality is inherently tied to another.
This ignorant but tolerant liberal is reminded of segregation and how the concept of "seperate but equal" was used to provide so-called "legal protection" to the negros. It failed miserably and only resulted in much intolerance.
Actually I understand how that position is advanced, unfortunately it doesn't have that much weight. In the earlier case they actually had to physically use something separate (facilities, services, etc). That meant that they could be shortchanged in a practical way.
Using a different checkbox on a form, granting all similar legal rights, would not result in the same potential deficits.
What I offer is my sincere tolerance and love for my fellow men and women, which is more than comparing 2 consenting adults to children and dogs.
I'm not seeing much tolerance from your end. I am seeing someone who has their own view of life with those they like and those they hate, and simply labelling the fact they like the people they like as "tolerance".
Tolerance is living alongside people that you do not like and treating them with civility.
I still don't understand why you think that's a smoke screen
The concept of "consent" with regard to sex is a smokescreen in that it confuses what actually underlies a person's moral or legal position on sexuality. I mean its just a term. Who is going to argue against "consent"? Not me. No one. What does it actually mean? Uh oh. I'm going to be as brief as possible on this...
Clearly everyone understands the idea of simple consent, which is agreeing to do something. If someone does something against another's will, that would be against their consent, they disagree and so it becomes rape, kidnapping, theft, whatever.
The Age of Consent (aoc) laws were not originally constructed with the idea of measuring if/when children were capable of giving consent. That is an ad hoc rationalization as these laws came into question/review. In reality aoc laws were propagated for reasons such as preventing child prostitution, as well as protecting parents from having their daughters knocked up. The laws were to strip the children from having the ability to LEGALLY give consent... not that they were unable or unlikely to give simple consent.
And that is where it all starts getting tricky. Kids can give simple consent. Its pretty obvious. So that's when the rationalization changes to "informed consent". The idea that kids don't know enough about sex and so must be protected by law.
Unfortunately there is no consistency to that argument. If this is true then there should be no sex allowed under that age at all. Most liberal adherents are unlikely to start charging kids for having sex with themselves or other kids. Informed consent would also effect the mentally handicapped of any age. Yet we would certainly allow that.
Further if informed consent is the concern then why is it arbitrarily placed on sex and not everything else in life where a child's ignorance might get them hurt? The idea that sex has greater inherent risk, is itself just an anti-sex bias.
If anything, if we believed that ignorance was a potential for harm, it would be more upsetting for kids to be having sex with other kids RATHER than someone that would know the risks.
Thus the concept of "informed consent" is the fig leaf justification one wears for the naked hatred towards adults having sex with kids. That is all it is there for. No one would apply it to any other situation.
The charge associated with aoc violations essentially admit we are not discussing violations of simple consent, since it is statutory rape or less, and not informed consent as we are unconcerned with any measure of what someone might know. There are marriage laws which essentially nullify aoc requirements, meaning the state recognizes a person can have sex at a younger age as long as they are married.
And it gets better, you may not be aware of this but aoc laws may also have different age levels based on sex as well as sexual orientation. If consent is the foundation then apparently states must view homosexuals or different genders as having different cognitive abilities to give consent.
NJ could easily appeal to whatever reason there is for that difference in cognitive ability and argue it should even be higher for homosexuals. Why not? You claim consent is found in those laws and those laws do state there is a difference.
If you begin to argue that those kinds of laws are unjust then we are right back where we started, with you having to explain why they are not unjust to people like NAMBLA.
As it is NJ could appeal to how homosexual sex was viewed not 40 years ago... a psychological disorder. He could argue that homosexuals do not have the capacity to give informed consent, just like we protect children (according to your argument). What are you going to appeal to on that? That psych orgs no longer have it on the lists of disorders? That would be an argument of convenience to be sure.
What does that mean for if that argument had been made in the past? What if it is readded to the DSM? What if the mass public simply makes that the legal position (we need to protect them regardless, like any other ADULT person we might deem incompetent)?
I really shortened my argument, but it looks complete enough (for about 1am my time). Maybe you can explain what YOU mean by consent and what that has to do with laws regarding sex. You could start with why it is applied to just sex rather than other activities in life... and what evidence you have for "ability to consent" having anything to do with the creation of these laws.
Some very ignorant people generally take my attack on the concept of consent, and the nature of the laws we have regarding sex, to suggest that I am for no laws on the matter and must be some card-carrying member of NAMBLA. Please don't be that ignorant.
I happen to support laws, just not the kind we have in the US today (strict age based). Yes under that scheme there is the very real possibility some adult-minor sex would happen. My guess would be very very little, and it would certainly NOT allow NAMBLA members free access to your kids.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Taz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 164 of 168 (365642)
11-23-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
11-23-2006 5:33 PM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
Whatever it is, he deliberately compared gay people with children.
You're absolutely correct, of course, which is why what NJ did was not a correctly-formed reducto ad absurdum, but rather, the fallacy of the straw man. Sex between adults and children is fundamentally different than sex between adults; by definition the first is nonconsensual while the second may or may not be (and we assume that we're referring to situations where it is.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Taz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 165 of 168 (365645)
11-23-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
11-23-2006 5:33 PM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
Just to let you know... regardless of what someone else claims... NJ used a form of reductio and it was valid.
To appeal to a difference one feels exists between the two cases, as if that negates the question posited by NJ, is to assume one is correct in the first place in order to simply avoid debate. It is essentially a circular argument, only less credible.
Don't you see how different these cases are? It is so obvious I don't have to answer why my argument can't be used by these other people! Circular, nonsequitor, bs.
Edited by holmes, : nix

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024