Remind of your pick if I ever need a DPOTY. :chuckle:Lucky said:
Lucky's pick 02-04-06
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
- Status
cattyfan said:
The logic was valid if you accept the flawed premise "citizens are good for society".
Implicit in that staement is "All citizens are good for society".
If you accept that "All citizens are good for society", then the proof is logically valid.
To prove that not all citizens are good for society, demonstrate that some citizens are not good for society.
examples might include:
murderers
rapists
child abusers
wife beaters
TOL trolls with nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon than stir up trouble
etc.
allsmiles-
Even if homosexuals were not detrimental to society, No Worries logic was illogical. Just because someone is a citizen that does not mean that they are good for society, does it?
Even if homosexuals were not detrimental to society, No Worries logic was illogical. Just because someone is a citizen that does not mean that they are good for society, does it?
Army of One
New member
Exactly! Why is that so hard for allsmiles to grasp?koban said:
Army of One
New member
:chuckle:koban said:
Humpty Dumpty reasoning as pointed out by kobi. The phrase "all citizens" means only what allsmiles and No Worries wish it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
In this case "all" doesn't mean "all", just some of "all" (e.g., :flamer:s).
Back in the days of the BBS Wars, we called this "LiberalLogik."
In this case "all" doesn't mean "all", just some of "all" (e.g., :flamer:s).
Back in the days of the BBS Wars, we called this "LiberalLogik."
allsmiles
New member
Lighthouse said:
well, let's break the mold and actually look at what No Worries said for a change, rather than the running trend of debating what you all would have liked for him to have said
is this untrue? does a society not need citizens? can a society be a society without citizens? and if a society needs citizens to be such, than having citizens is good for society. is there anything untrue about that?
No Worries wasn't talking about a citizen Lighthouse, he was talking about citizens. now, if he were making a case by case argument based on individuals than i'm inclined to believe that his position would have been a little more specific.
the argument comes down to whether or not homosexuals are good or bad citizens, not the individual, but the group as a whole. we're not talking about rapists, we're not talking about murderers. if murderers or rapists were what No Worries was talking about he would have specified.
Poly twisted his words, unabashedly and expects the plainly and deliberately changed words to stand as some sort of argument, and i don't think that's legitimate.:nono:
allsmiles
New member
koban said:
so a society can be a society without citizens? if a society needs citizens to qualify as such then yes, citizens are good for society.
then maybe you should be making a case that a society does not need citizens.
i myself would argue that murderers and rapists exclude themselves from the privilege of society and valid citizenship. what you folks have yet to do is bridge the gap between murder and rape and consensual sex between two adult americans.
No Worries wasn't talking about murder Koban, he was talking about consensual sex between two adult americans.
rape is not consenual.
and the list goes on. if you want to talk about how these wastes of life have excluded themselves from the privilege of civilized society than let's talk about it, but chances are we'll be on the same side
all you have to do is demonstrate how consensual sex between two adult americans is equal to the actions and consequences of rape and murder, two acts which by definition are not consensual :nono:
allsmiles
New member
allsmiles said:so a society can be a society without citizens? if a society needs citizens to qualify as such then yes, citizens are good for society.
then maybe you should be making a case that a society does not need citizens.
i myself would argue that murderers and rapists exclude themselves from the privilege of society and valid citizenship. what you folks have yet to do is bridge the gap between murder and rape and consensual sex between two adult americans.
No Worries wasn't talking about murder Koban, he was talking about consensual sex between two adult americans.
rape is not consensual.
and the list goes on. if you want to talk about how these wastes of life have excluded themselves from the privilege of civilized society than let's talk about it, but chances are we'll be on the same side
all you have to do is demonstrate how consensual sex between two adult americans is equal to the actions and consequences of rape and murder, two acts which by definition are not consensual :nono:
AS, are you just playing devil's advocate on this? or do you actually not see the error in logic? Have you read the posts? have you read koban's post?allsmiles said:well, let's break the mold and actually look at what No Worries said for a change, rather than the running trend of debating what you all would have liked for him to have said
is this untrue? does a society not need citizens? can a society be a society without citizens? and if a society needs citizens to be such, than having citizens is good for society. is there anything untrue about that?
No Worries wasn't talking about a citizen Lighthouse, he was talking about citizens. now, if he were making a case by case argument based on individuals than i'm inclined to believe that his position would have been a little more specific.
the argument comes down to whether or not homosexuals are good or bad citizens, not the individual, but the group as a whole. we're not talking about rapists, we're not talking about murderers. if murderers or rapists were what No Worries was talking about he would have specified.
Poly twisted his words, unabashedly and expects the plainly and deliberately changed words to stand as some sort of argument, and i don't think that's legitimate.:nono:
I don't see how you can't see that NW's statement just doesn't follow. And I find it interesting that not even NW is defending his post, I guess that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but maybe he realizes that his statement was nonsense. :think:
allsmiles
New member
kmoney said:
yeah, this is definitely a dead horse kicking competition...:think:
no, i don't see the rational in anything you folks have said in this thread.:nono:
but for the sake of not wasting any more time trying to point out the obvious twisting of words and misrepresentation on the part of the christians on this thread, i'll bow out.
:yawn:
allsmiles
New member
i've been sitting here doing this through the whole thread: :bangbang:
i've been asking over and over and over and over again for someone to bridge the gap between rape and murder and consensual sex between two adult americans.
until that's done you folks are WAY out of line in making such a comparison, and it makes Poly's blatant word twisting even worse.
i've been asking over and over and over and over again for someone to bridge the gap between rape and murder and consensual sex between two adult americans.
until that's done you folks are WAY out of line in making such a comparison, and it makes Poly's blatant word twisting even worse.
- Status