scrappy Posted April 10, 2009 Author Posted April 10, 2009 Don't generalize, and don't beat around the bush. I asked you about yours, not about anyone else's. My opinion is simple: if a state’s supreme court rules in favor of the constitutionality of SSM then I’m on board. If it doesn’t then I’m on board with that, too. Because I am not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion on an issue concerning its constitutionality in any state should trump the opinion of that state’s supreme court. Can you say the same thing, either way a state’s supreme court might decide? No, that's proof that SOME OF THEM are inconsistent… NARTH seems to acknowledge your point. At least one religious organization is asking: WILL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEAD INEVITABLY TO THE LEGALIZATION OF POLYGAMY? Same Sexers" are as diverse as "Multi Sexers", scrappy. “Multi-sexers”? I thought only the fungi could do that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedScrappy, your intellectual dishonesty is truly staggering. You've been provided with *FIRST HAND* evidence of same sex relationships which not only support poly, but engage in it, along with data that this actually *not* atypical - IME, many same-sex couples are far less stringent about monogamy than opposite-sex couples. Well, excuse me all the way the hell, but your polygamous same-sex relationship is a bit shocking to me. I'm still trying to adjust to SSM in Iowa, and now you're throwing group sex among men at me like it was the thing to do in prison or in a locker room. ...If you aren't going to deal with evidence, you have no place here. Maybe you're right. I've already sampled your grasp of evolutionary principles. Why should anything change regarding your grasp of legal principles?.
ParanoiA Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 That said' date=' no offense ParanoiA, but I would like to hear about his claim from him, not anyone else, so I won't fall into the same trap of generalizing or misunderstanding the claims that are put forth. I'm waiting for Scrappy to tell me what Scrappy thinks, not what everyone else think Scrappy thinks. I think that's fair, don't you?[/quote'] I wasn't trying to speak for him as much as I am assailing his tactics. And the more everyone keeps validating his tactic by playing along with his logical circles, the worse it seems to get. Just look at post # 76. We covered that in the last thread, and here he's at it again. Just ask Sayo how many pages was wasted on that effort. But have at it. I'm actually, seriously this time, going to stop feeding the troll.
mooeypoo Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 My opinion is simple: if a state’s supreme court rules in favor of the constitutionality of SSM then I’m on board. If it doesn’t then I’m on board with that, too. Because I am not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion on an issue concerning its constitutionality in any state should trump the opinion of that state’s supreme court. It's not about arrogance, it's about opinions and values. Democracy is not *ONLY* majority rule, it's also giving rights to the minority and not ignoring the minority. Supreme courts *can* be wrong, and all you have to do is read a bit of American history. Democracy works because the people are active: Active in making decisions (voting), active in putting the state at check (through elections, demonstrations, ballots, etc). If the citizens are inactive, democracy deteriorates to something other than democracy. Look at the Weimar Republic of pre-Nazi germany. The german people "won" democracy when it was quite clear that they're not quite ready for it - the government was too disorganized, the people were not being active - they were not keeping the state at bay, they were not making sure the people were properly represented. The Majority voted Nazi party. The Nazi party put up rules against minorities in society - from Jews to disabled people. People in Germany were not ACTIVE, they did not DO ANYTHING against the decisions that were decided in that state (Majority rule, yes?) and the country deteriorated into one of the worst fascistic regims in our recent history. Don't tell us we're the arrogant ones, Scrappy, because we care about our country enough to fight for what we believe in. Fighting for what you believe in does not mean that you betray your country, it means you work to make your country better. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do with not sticking your head in the sand and letting things just "pass" around you. Can you say the same thing, either way a state’s supreme court might decide? I believe in the system of democracy, but not blindly. If I think the supreme court's decision was unfair, I will use my constitutional right and appeal. It's called having principles and fighting for your values. I will not violently go against the state, and I will not do anything illegal, and I will (and am) follow the rules, but that does not mean I will not use my rights as a citizen to fight against that decision. That is the part of the difference between fascism and democracy, Scrappy. NARTH seems to acknowledge your point. At least one religious organization is asking: WILL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEAD INEVITABLY TO THE LEGALIZATION OF POLYGAMY? Yes, so what, the religious organizations are the main force against same-sex marriage anyways, and are using any argument in their arsenal (logical or not) to fight it. That's not really saying anything other than (what I believe we all know, deep down) that this anti-same-sex-marriage debate in our culture stems MOSTLY from religion. If anything, that should prove to you that for the sake of separation of church and state, their arguments are void. “Multi-sexers”? I thought only the fungi could do that. Yeah, not funny. You haven't really tackled any of the arguments, you're just using some hiding tactics of "I will follow whatever is decided". What happens if what is decided is against what you believe? Will you not fight against it then? Will you be putting your head in the sand then, too, claiming that you're not as arrogant as to argue? Should I remind you the situation 200 years ago with "colored" people, their status in society, and the position of courts about the matter? Are you truly claiming that people should not have been "arrogant" and fight against unfair treatment because the courts decided it was constitutional? ~moo
Pangloss Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) I'm actually pretty proud of this subforum for the way its working with Scrappy. The Reported Posts subforum is full of Scrappy reports, but everyone can relax. He's received some infractions and will likely receive more, not for his opinion, but for repeating logical fallacies and trolling. Meanwhile his POV is being (more or less) respected and he's being allowed to state his opinion. When he puts up a flawed argument, it gets pointed out quickly and doesn't get to stand. Exactly how it should be -- applause! I want to point out that Scrappy has been respectful of other people's opinions and does not generally attack people. I believe he can be a valuable contributor to discussions here if he'll back off on the logical fallacies and perhaps be more acknowledging when his reasoning is unsuccessful. I think we all know how hard it is when you feel like you're all alone and under fire -- let's keep that in mind, eh? Good dissent is a valuable thing that raises the quality of debate. The goal should be preserving and building that, whenever possible. Let's see if we can do that here. Edited April 10, 2009 by Pangloss
scrappy Posted April 10, 2009 Author Posted April 10, 2009 It's called having principles and fighting for your values. And if you’re not fighting for constitutional principles and the values of a constitutional republic then you’re probably an anarchist. Depends on how you’re fighting. Don't tell us we're the arrogant ones, Scrappy, because we care about our country enough to fight for what we believe in. Fighting for what you believe in does not mean that you betray your country, it means you work to make your country better. But all I’m saying is that they believe in their convictions (rightly or wrongly) just as fervently as you believe in yours. Only a supreme court’s interpretation of a state’s constitution stands between the two of you (4 states down, 46 to go!). Should I remind you the situation 200 years ago with "colored" people, their status in society, and the position of courts about the matter? Are you truly claiming that people should not have been "arrogant" and fight against unfair treatment because the courts decided it was constitutional? I know; it’s always back to the “colored people” and the Nazis and all. If I were a gay person I would want to avoid any suggestion that my miserable lot in life was anything whatsoever like the plight of the “colored people.”
mooeypoo Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 You're again trying to shift the argument and not answer questions. I didn't ask about "THEM", I ask about you. When I confront you for what you claim, you shift to "them" again, and when I speak of them, you shift to you. Seriously, scrappy, it's getting old.
Mokele Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Well, excuse me all the way the hell, but your polygamous same-sex relationship is a bit shocking to me. I'm still trying to adjust to SSM in Iowa, and now you're throwing group sex among men at me like it was the thing to do in prison or in a locker room. Being shocking or not is irrelevant - the point is that you asked for examples, and I provided one from direct personal experience, yet you blithely ignored it and kept repeating the same old crap. You don't get to ignore something because it's 'shocking'. And frankly, if that's shocking, I could tell you stories that would put you into a coma. Maybe you're right. I've already sampled your grasp of evolutionary principles. Why should anything change regarding your grasp of legal principles?. yeah, those pesky "facts" and "logic" always get in the way of dogmatic belief. Also, note that legal principles have nothing to do with this. My sole contributions to this thread have been calling you on your "gay not poly" bullshit, and are indisputable on the basis of "been there, done them".
scrappy Posted April 10, 2009 Author Posted April 10, 2009 yeah, those pesky "facts" and "logic" always get in the way of dogmatic belief. Bad choice of words "dogmatic belief." Don't you think this forum carries dogmatic belief about the issue of SSM? Also, note that legal principles have nothing to do with this. My sole contributions to this thread have been calling you on your "gay not poly" bullshit, and are indisputable on the basis of "been there, done them". And all the while I was thinking we were talking about legal principles? When was that changed? I missed it. I think many of the “home team” here are rendered self-righteous by their microcosm of opinionation. There is also a macrocosm of opinionation, which I try to illuminate, but the “home team” doesn’t want to hear of it. Everything I argue here is tactical, circular, unfair, irrelevant—a bigoted strategy to undermine the favored POV. But of course hyperbole is OK; so is complaining to the big cheese if you can’t win an argument. Doesn’t anybody here enjoy hardball debating? Or is this a forum for patty cakes?
Pangloss Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Well now we're just degenerating again into name-calling and rudeness. Members opinion should not be called "bullshit" and members should not be called "patty cakes". If that's the best we can do here then I'm going to put the thread on suicide watch.
Sayonara Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 I think many of the “home team” here are rendered self-righteous by their microcosm of opinionation. There is also a macrocosm of opinionation, which I try to illuminate, but the “home team” doesn’t want to hear of it. Everything I argue here is tactical, circular, unfair, irrelevant—a bigoted strategy to undermine the favored POV. But of course hyperbole is OK; so is complaining to the big cheese if you can’t win an argument. Doesn’t anybody here enjoy hardball debating? Or is this a forum for patty cakes? Then of course there is the more elegant explanation, in which your "home team" understand the issues better than you do.
mooeypoo Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 I think many of the “home team” here are rendered self-righteous by their microcosm of opinionation. There is also a macrocosm of opinionation, which I try to illuminate, but the “home team” doesn’t want to hear of it. Everything I argue here is tactical, circular, unfair, irrelevant—a bigoted strategy to undermine the favored POV. But of course hyperbole is OK; so is complaining to the big cheese if you can’t win an argument. Doesn’t anybody here enjoy hardball debating? Or is this a forum for patty cakes? Really? At least the "home team" is not blatantly ignoring claims others make because they are uncapable of answering them honestly. Seriously, this tendency of yours to ignore claims, argue different nitpicks of arguments you choose to deal with, then wait 2-3 pages and claim no one dealt with the original claim (expecting people to just forget you couldn't deal with them yourself) is getting old. This might be a political issue, but we're still a science forum. We don't really do much for bad, one-sided debates, home team or not home team.
Mokele Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Members opinion should not be called "bullshit" Except when it actually *is* bullshit - baseless speculation flatly contradicted by empirical evidence. If someone doesn't want their opinion called bullshit, they should try actually thinking it through and checking the evidence, rather than spouting off any foolish idea that wanders through their head.
mooeypoo Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 I think it would be better put as - opinions should not be called bullshit. Arguments can.
Pangloss Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 I think that's a stupid ****ing argument. Do you feel that I respect you more or less, having phrased it that way?
Mokele Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 No, even opinions. Anything contradicted by evidence deserves no respect, no deference, nothing but to be burned from human consciousness.
ParanoiA Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Polarizing it doesn't sound like an effective way of getting rid of it.
Pangloss Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 No, even opinions. Anything contradicted by evidence deserves no respect, no deference, nothing but to be burned from human consciousness. Not even if the opinion is made out of ignorance? A child is to be disrespected because they should have been born smarter? Being rude is not an argument. An ignorant statement is a learning opportunity, not a good time to call for a hanging rope. 1
mooeypoo Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 I think that's a stupid ****ing argument. Do you feel that I respect you more or less, having phrased it that way? Unfair, considering the fact I was talking about calling an argument stupid, not ****ing stupid. But yes, I think that if my argument is fallacious and inconsistent and stupid, you can call me up on it. I don't think it disrespects a person or his opinion by calling his ARGUMENT stupid. I respect people's opinions. I don't accept fallacious arguments. Arguments can be silly and stupid. People's opinions are their own, and calling someone stupid is not the same as calling their ARGUMENT stupid.
iNow Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Not even if the opinion is made out of ignorance? A child is to be disrespected because they should have been born smarter? Also, an invalid description of what is going on here. Scrappy has been corrected numerous times. His faulty logic pointed out to him repeatedly, here and in previous threads. Repetition is not a valid form of argument. He has been taught why it's wrong, and chosen to ignore those teachings. The analogy that he is a child who has simply been born less smart is not valid. He has been provided all of the tools required to be smarter, and still continues posting the ignorance. It's been demonstrated false repeatedly with evidence. He continues repeating the ignorance in the face of the contradictory evidence. It's bullshit, and we shouldn't have to pretend otherwise. Kindness and patience were shat upon. The truth being shared more bluntly is something he has brought upon himself. Stop sticking up for him. He knows perfectly well what he's doing, and your open support of him... standing against the other staff in a public thread... only reinforces his need for attention and poor habits. Ignoring rebutting evidence is not a valid counter argument, yet that's all he's managed to do. Ignoring poignant questions is not a valid answer of them, yet that's all he's managed to do. At what point in time do you say, "Enough already," and call a spade a spade?
ParanoiA Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Oh come on, we're adults here and we're wrong, it's that simple. Look, nothing justifies ad hom and we're all guilty of it, well maybe a few of you aren't. Sure, we think we're justified but we're not. It's not ok to degenerate to disparaging comments. We all know that. Good call, Pangloss.
iNow Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 On more than one occasion in these now numerous threads about same sex marriage, you ParanoiA have referred to scrappy as a troll, and openly asserted that he is simply playing games... that discussions with him go around in circles and that it was not worth our time to continue to do so with him. Tell me, my good friend. What in scrappys style or approach has changed that you suddenly think it wrong to openly and truthfully label his argument as bunk and long ago refuted? There is no ad hom when it's a truth being stated, and when the argument does not hinge on the sharing of that truth. Our arguments are about facts, and do not rely solely on the desire to label him in a derogatory manner. Ad hom is when you use personal attacks on your opponent in an attempt to defeat their argument without actually dealing with it, instead choosing to attack the messager (as opposed to the message). The message was long ago countered, and yet he continues to repeat it. Nobody is trying to defeat his argument by attacking him, so please don't suggest that is the case. That's not what's happening here, so let's please be honest with each other, shall we? Sure, it's better to be nice to people, but that's no reason to dance around a well-established truth. The guy is just playing games, and has no desire to debate honestly or with integrity... at least, not about this particular topic.
ParanoiA Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 No, no I agree with all that. And the way you just put it. I do believe him to be a troll when he's losing arguments. But we're wrong when we just call him names or any other appeal to ridicule. We should just call him out, professionally, and be done with it. I thought Mooey, Pangloss, Padren, all demonstrated the class we should all appreciate. And that's what you'd expect from mods. But let's put this in perspective. I'm not beating myself a bloody pulp over it, I'm just saying I'm not going to hide behind some excuse because I think he's a troll. Pangloss is right to call it out. I suppose you feel he should have called scrappy out. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it open season for us either.
Pangloss Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Well I did call Scrappy out, it just didn't do any good, which is when I realized iNow was right and he was being a bit of a troll. That's Pangloss for you -- you never have to tell me a fifth time! Stop sticking up for him. He knows perfectly well what he's doing' date=' and your open support of him... standing against the other staff in a public thread... only reinforces his need for attention and poor habits. At what point in time do you say, "Enough already," and call a spade a spade?[/quote'] I think you must have missed the part where I acknowledged him being a troll and informed the membership that he's received infractions for his behavior. Anyway, I don't want to argue about it (being hardly one to call a kettle black). I'd rather point out how much of a debt this board owes you for your ability to identify problems before most of us have even blinked innocently and fallen into the trap. If you're catching a little heat about what sometimes happens later, maybe that is in part an acknowledgement of how much your presence means to this community. I just wish you were a little more tolerant of the borderline cases, is all. I mean, you know, the ones that Mokele, YT or I haven't banned just because they looked at us funny.
iNow Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Reading your message above is probably the best I way I could have possibly started my morning today. Thanks for that, my friend, and sorry I sometimes push harder than people would like.
scrappy Posted April 11, 2009 Author Posted April 11, 2009 Well I did call Scrappy out, it just didn't do any good, which is when I realized iNow was right and he was being a bit of a troll. That's Pangloss for you -- you never have to tell me a fifth time! No need for "home team" members to argue amongst themselves. It looks bad to the viewing audience. This thread has produced profoundly empirical evidence showing that if you buck the "home team" and argue against SFN dogma then you will be called a troll or worse, including threats of suspension. But I'm already on record for supporting same-sex DPs. Hell, I'm already on record for supporting SSM in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, California, and DC. But even that isn't good enough for the "home team." They want me post same-sex love notes with XXXs and OOOs and smily faces. Well, I send my kisses in the form of a rigorous philosophical debate. Someone should have told me sooner that rigorous debating is too much of a bother for the "home team," and that its members will become upset if their arguments are not agreed to in every detail by every poster. When I study the posts of this thread and others I find convincing evidence of who's really trolling around here... (iNow: that be you!)
Recommended Posts