More on the British sniper...er, homosexuality

#53
#53
CSpindizzy said:
Not sure where you got that. Can you find the post telling me where I said who can and cannot marry? I'm inquiring to someone else's logic. I'm asking questions and following through others' logic. I'm not making a stand one way or another.
Click to expand...

Based on you're arguments I interpreted that you were against gay marriage, maybe you are, maybe your not, maybe you're playing devils advocate, maybe you don't want anyone to know how you feel on this particular issue. I don't know.
 
#54
#54
CSpindizzy said:
So because the definition of something varies, standards in general are wrong? Where are you going with this? You're avoiding the question altogether. You on one hand advocate complete freedom but then on the other hand throw out a limit to freedom. Who is to say what is just and unjust here? Why draw the line anywhere? If a 50 year old male teacher wants to be in a relationship with a 16 year old student, it's consensual right? I can go on and on with endless examples. Where do you draw the line? Answer that - where do you draw the line and who are you to draw the line? Someone is always left out of the 'freedom' argument somewhere.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope, slippery slope, slippery slope...
 
#55
#55
CSpindizzy said:
As I see it as long as it is an adult penguin and you both consent.....yes. Chilly Willy is much better suited for you than Oswald Cobblepot though.
Click to expand...

When animals can consent, I will be open to discussing bestiality.
 
#57
#57
CSpindizzy said:
Can they not consent? Have you had this discussion with one? So the two male penguins did not consent?
Click to expand...

They can not consent to being with a human, in a societal sense. You were referencing bestiality earlier.

Animals "consenting" to acts with one another is personifying them to an absurd degree.



Are you familiar with a "continuum fallacy?" You should be.
 
#60
#60
In a societal sense. So now we go from what occurs in nature being freely allowed versus limits determined by society. And you went from using animals as examples to imposing limits to just human beings.

Pick one side of the issue. Are you now saying it is OK for society to set standards? What can those standards be? Who gets to set them? what of those not included in 'allowable' behavior?

You've yet to answer any of those questions. Or the one about the teacher and the student. And don't hide behind "slippery slope".
 
#61
#61
I am not hiding from anything. You haven't responded to hardly anything at all in the form of a statement and act as if you are running a cross-examination.


I have already stated that these were separate points. I am not linking them, and have explicitly said I was not linking them. I don't think you missing the part about the penguins having sex in the article was an isolated incident. You are pecking at my posts and posturing.


I'm saying our society's highest standards, as a nation, are for individual liberty and equality. Our society's standards are separated from that of a particular church or religion (which is I think, part of our disconnect on what society we are each thinking of. I am probably not a part of your society). Sputtering about "well who is an adult" and "where's the line" is just being asinine, diversionary, and is by definition fallacious in nature.

The mark of who is an adult is blurry in an informal context, but as you well know we do have a legal definition of it in this country, one that has changed a lot throughout the years and even varies by state. But the line does not invalidate the sentiment.
 
#62
#62
As far as your 50 year old and 16 year old, legally it varies by state and has nothing to do with homosexuality. In the end, yes I think it can be consensual. I have a pair of very good friends that have happily been together for 8 years, and are 40 years apart in age.
 
#63
#63
Fine. Continue to evade and dodge and get lost in details. I know how this works. Clearly you go on and on about freedom and liberty but cannot even define what that is and where the lines are. Not sure how you can go on about our highest standards when you cannot even define where the standard even begins. Without the baseline there is no 'standard'. Call that asinine all you want but to make an argument with no specific starting point is as asinine as it gets. It's the equivalent of "can't we all just get along?"

As for the 50 and 16 year old example you clearly didn't bother reading since it actually does involve homosexuality. Take that aspect off and it goes into the whole notion of "freedom" which you keep claiming what this whole thing is about. Isn't that what this is about? Seeing your speech above and the whole consent logic, I figured you would have caught that.

Your argument is about consent and freedom. But then you say that clearly there are limits even to what defines an adult. You say freedom should supercede in the argument but then defer to a societal standard of even the baseline argument of "age". I'll take the whole notion of 'homosexuality' out of this altogether and you're still all over the board. But seeing as how you will still avoid addressing that, I will walk away from the argument.
 
#64
#64
CSpindizzy said:
Fine. Continue to evade and dodge and get lost in details. I know how this works. Clearly you go on and on about freedom and liberty but cannot even define what that is and where the lines are. Not sure how you can go on about our highest standards when you cannot even define where the standard even begins. Without the baseline there is no 'standard'. Call that asinine all you want but to make an argument with no specific starting point is as asinine as it gets. It's the equivalent of "can't we all just get along?"

As for the 50 and 16 year old example you clearly didn't bother reading since it actually does involve homosexuality. Take that aspect off and it goes into the whole notion of "freedom" which you keep claiming what this whole thing is about. Isn't that what this is about? Seeing your speech above and the whole consent logic, I figured you would have caught that.

Your argument is about consent and freedom. But then you say that clearly there are limits even to what defines an adult. You say freedom should supercede in the argument but then defer to a societal standard of even the baseline argument of "age". I'll take the whole notion of 'homosexuality' out of this altogether and you're still all over the board. But seeing as how you will still avoid addressing that, I will walk away from the argument.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what am I dodging?

I was saying the age issue of consent is not limited to homosexuals. It happens with heterosexuals all the time.

I have no idea how you are coming to the conclusions you are about what I said because

1)I supposedly "dodged" your questions, so you shouldn't have anything to go on

2)you are jumping to conclusions that I didn't make.

I've been quite clear that the issue of "age" of consent has nothing to do with the original discussion. But I humored you anyway, and mentioned that the American standard varies (as you pointed out). Heck, if a 10 year old murders someone, he can be tried as an adult. It should begin when an individual is able to think and make decisions for themselves, fully understanding the consequences.

I think you walked away from the conversation a long time ago. You only attempted to cross-examine me and trap me in some sort of word game. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. I guess I "dodged" it.

Seriously, you should look up continuum fallacy. It's also known as the "line drawing fallacy."
 
#65
#65
CSpindizzy said:
In a societal sense. So now we go from what occurs in nature being freely allowed versus limits determined by society.
Click to expand...
Ya, I never said what occurs in nature should be freely allowed. Quote me, retract it, or just be a liar. I don't care.

And you went from using animals as examples to imposing limits to just human beings.
Click to expand...

You may have a reading comprehension problem.
 
#66
#66
What's my reading comprehension problem? You went from penguins and flamingos to prove a point to pointing out societal definitions based solely on human behavior not to mention some tangent on animals consenting after a joke about Chilly Willy.

Keep throwing out terminology. It's not helping your case. I am not "cross-examining" you or trying to trap you. I'm trying to follow your "logic" which bounced between humans and animals, what happens in nature vs. what is permissive in society, some complete freedom as long as all consent vs. admission of having a standard that does limit permitted behavior. Throw out a few more terms if it makes you feel better but you've bounced back and forth in your argument all day long. All I am trying to do is figure out which side you're on. If you can find a term that describes having it both ways and the inability to pick a side and not only stick with it but defend it, I'd love to hear it.
 
#67
#67
Maybe you are just skipping every other word I type.

Quick poll to anyone besides Cspindizzy:

What "side" am I on with homosexual marriage?
 
#73
#73
bam15 said:
Penguins?

Homosexuality?

Which are somehow related to a British Sniper.

Waiting on the Islamic hijack next.
Click to expand...

The sniper, al Qaeda, and gay marriage was all on page one by the same person. This was an open thread from the get-go.
 
#75
#75
Seriously? Wow. I cannot believe you just asked that. I cannot spell out any clearer for you. It's about the logic you used and how your whole argument itself was flawed. Did you just shut down earlier in the day and type out random comments? Did you completely ignore every single question I raised to you? It had NOTHING to do with how you felt on gay marriage. It had to do with again: your "logic" which bounced between humans and animals, what happens in nature vs. what is permissive in society, some complete freedom as long as all consent vs. admission of having a standard that does limit permitted behavior.

I know your original point. Again the argument is what I tried to figure out. I don't know how many times I can say the words logic, argument, etc. and you just not get it. To prove your point you were all over the place. You even went on the other side in some distorted effort to prove your point.

Again, did I mention I was trying to follow your logic? You do know that word right? You aren't just trolling around websites to throw out big boy terminology to deflect right? Again, you pick a side and then drift all over the place to defend it. It makes it difficult to follow based on your argument. I'm trying to restate this over and over to see if you're catching on. Is it working?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top