Yay for the gays in New York!

[therealUT]

Easy to tell when you lefties lose the argument, either play the race card or just take shots and call names. Check and check.

I would like to hear your defense of your belief that sexual orientation is a choice.

Before you begin though, I would like to ask you when was the last time you suppressed a homosexual urge (choosing against such urges would simply be a norm for someone who claims, with such absolute conviction as you have shown, that homosexuality is a choice).

 

[milohimself]

Easy to tell when you lefties lose the argument, either play the race card or just take shots and call names. Check and check.

Hm... I've counted at least three, maybe four people who are not on your side here who in absolutely no way identify themselves with liberals (unless being liberal is contingent on opposition of the government defining marriage between one man and one woman, or defining marriage at all).

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Easy to tell when you lefties lose the argument, either play the race card or just take shots and call names. Check and check.

How do you lose an exchange of opinions and how am I a leftist again? Oh yeah, because I don't agree with you.

Smoke one, ffs.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Hm... I've counted at least three, maybe four people who are not on your side here who in absolutely no way identify themselves with liberals (unless being liberal is contingent on opposition of the government defining marriage between one man and one woman, or defining marriage at all).

Make it 5.

 

[hndog609]

It does not have to controvert the definitions you have looked up; it simply must recognize that "large" is a relative termed defined by the context in which it is used.

cough..."contexts I've set forth"...cough

 

[ToineMac]

I have decided that i no longer give a crap if gays get married or not. I'm a married heterosexual christian and gay marriage has absolutely no effect on my life. I used to say i was against it but now i'm thinking why are people arguing about this? How is gay marriage gonna in any way bother me in my monogamous heterosexual relationship. It won't. In a country that watches the Bachelor and Flavor of Love or has a 50 percent divorce rate, do we really hold marriage that sacred anymore. I say let them get married. I think churches should still have the right to not perform the ceremony since they wouldn't recognize gay marriage. But i see no reason why something that won't affect us should bother us so much.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volfanjustin]

Again, I think the people of a state have the right to decide this matter. Not a judge, not a State Senator or a President. This is a state issue, I am personally against gays getting married but if the people of a certain state vote to allow it then fine, go ahead.

 

[lumberjack4]

I have decided that i no longer give a crap if gays get married or not. I'm a married heterosexual christian and gay marriage has absolutely no effect on my life. I used to say i was against it but now i'm thinking why are people arguing about this? How is gay marriage gonna in any way bother me in my monogamous heterosexual relationship. It won't. In a country that watches the Bachelor and Flavor of Love or has a 50 percent divorce rate, do we really hold marriage that sacred anymore. I say let them get married. I think churches should still have the right to not perform the ceremony since they wouldn't recognize gay marriage. But i see no reason why something that won't affect us should bother us so much.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Your level-headed thinking doesn't belong here.

 

[therealUT]

cough..."contexts I've set forth"...cough

Not at all. The context is qualified by the subject matter. When speaking of a group with a population of 1.2B, 50M is not large and therefore it is not many.

Vague terms and vague associations are the reason why philosophers spend time defining terms prior to laying out their arguments; this is so that everyone is on the same page. I asked VFJ to provide his definition of "many" as it referred to Muslims, I asked for an estimated percentage. When he refused to provide such information, I called him out for his egregious use of the term "many".

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Many:
determiner, pronoun, & adjective (more, most)
a large number of:
[as determiner] :
many people agreed with her
[as pronoun] :
the solution to many of our problems
many think it is a new craze
noun
(as plural nounthe many)
the majority of people:
music for the many

Large:
adjective
1 of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity:
add a large clove of garlic
the concert attracted large crowds
the sweater comes in small, medium, and large sizes
pursuing an occupation or commercial activity on a significant scale:
many large investors are likely to take a different view
2 of wide range or scope:
we can afford to take a larger view of the situation

Relative:
adjective
1 considered in relation or in proportion to something else:
the relative effectiveness of the various mechanisms is not known
existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute:
she went down the steps into the relative darkness of the dining room
the companies are relative newcomers to computers
2 Grammardenoting a pronoun, determiner, or adverb that refers to an expressed or implied antecedent and attaches a subordinate clause to it, e.g., which, who.
(of a clause) attached to an antecedent by a relative word.

 

[lawgator1]

When I buy a lottery ticket (sometimes for the hell of it while getting gas) I'm often asked if I only want one. I then ask the person how much they think my odds of winning go up with additional numbers. Responses vary from a laugh and "I see what you mean." to blank stares and wisps of smoke coming out of their ears.

Try this one on for size.

Reason it out with them: "Well, if I buy one more, that doubles my chances, right?"

(And it does. This is mathematically correct.)

Then add this: "So how much would my chances go up if I bought two more? Or five?"

Key: Never define the word "chance."

 

[n_huffhines]

So kind of an aside. I am a bit skeptical about choice vs nature. If I had to guess, I would say my sister* chose to be a lesbian. She's been in lesbian relationships for at least 15 years, but has had relationships with men as recently as 2008 (that I know of). So is there any conclusive evidence that it's nature?

Really the answer to the question doesn't matter to me. If it's a choice why would that mean they can't get married like the rest of us?

*I realize that she doesn't represent everyone

 

[ToineMac]

Your level-headed thinking doesn't belong here.

You are absolutely right. That's part of the problem in this country. You only ever hear from the nuts. The Muslim hating no tax wanting self righteous bigots or the Socialist abortion loving gun hating feminists. Never the people who just want to find a happy medium and live there life.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Congrats, so by serving you are now an expert on all things Islam. No point in arguing with you anymore, you have no clue. You know no bounds when it comes to sticking up for those who would love to destroy this country and kill every single one of us.

I never have and never will stick up for the ones who actually want to commit acts of violence; in fact, I have personally stopped more than a handful from doing so.

You, on the other hand, think that the security of some innocents justifies the persecution of other innocents. On this account, we are fundamentally opposed. The vast majority of Muslims are neither terrorists nor supporters of terrorism; yet, you would have them treated as such in order to catch the small percentage that are terrorists in your net. While that might be an effective solution in ending terrorism against the US, it is a morally reprehensible solution and demonstrates a complete lack of competence and innovative thought with regard to the problem of terrorism.

 

[hndog609]

Not at all. The context is qualified by the subject matter. When speaking of a group with a population of 1.2B, 50M is not large and therefore it is not many.

Vague terms and vague associations are the reason why philosophers spend time defining terms prior to laying out their arguments; this is so that everyone is on the same page. I asked VFJ to provide his definition of "many" as it referred to Muslims, I asked for an estimated percentage. When he refused to provide such information, I called him out for his egregious use of the term "many".

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Then let's roll with this for a minute. The context is "people". I don't care who they are, where they are or why they're being grouped at all. 50M (just as a number, remember the why doesn't even matter) is more than the population of TX & NY combined. That the world's population is (I think) in the 6-7 billion range doesn't change that fact in the least.

So, and for the record;
"On a clear desert night there are many stars visible." is a viable use of "many", yes or no?

Let's flip this; do you think AIDS is a problem? If so 2009 figures put the entire world's HIV number at less than 34 million. Either "many" people are infected with HIV or they aren't. I say many...what say you?

How about "The UT fooball program has many fans". Do I have to qualify this with "compared to many other schools"? With the state's overall population? The US population? North Amerca's? The world's? I can't simply make the statement without it being false? I really don't think that's the case.

I will say (and this is an "again" thing) I'm fully aware that one must take care as ONE aspect of "many" can be used to at least imply a large portion or even majority of a certain other, larger number. I think this is the context you were admonishing VFJ to be mindful of, particularly after asking for a percentage.

 

[DynamiteMcGhee]

Where's raven when you need him?

Back..

To....

Gay people...

 

[therealUT]

You cannot define something as a relative term and then remove it from its context.

Then let's roll with this for a minute. The context is "people". I don't care who they are, where they are or why they're being grouped at all. 50M (just as a number, remember the why doesn't even matter) is more than the population of TX & NY combined. That the world's population is (I think) in the 6-7 billion range doesn't change that fact in the least.

50M persons are not many persons. 50M Americans are many Americans.

So, and for the record;
"On a clear desert night there are many stars visible." is a viable use of "many", yes or no?

As long as the context implies a comparison between the stars visible on a clear night versus a cloudy night. As for the entire cosmos, no, there are not many stars visible on any night, from Earth.

Let's flip this; do you think AIDS is a problem? If so 2009 figures put the entire world's HIV number at less than 34 million. Either "many" people are infected with HIV or they aren't. I say many...what say you?

There are not many persons infected with nor affected by HIV/AIDS.

How about "The UT fooball program has many fans". Do I have to qualify this with "compared to many other schools"? With the state's overall population? The US population? North Amerca's? The world's? I can't simply make the statement without it being false? I really don't think that's the case.

The context and qualification here is as compared to other football programs. UT does not have many fans as compared to the Yankees, Man U, or the Indian National Cricket Team.

I will say (and this is an "again" thing) I'm fully aware that one must take care as ONE aspect of "many" can be used to at least imply a large portion or even majority of a certain other, larger number.

It is not just one aspect. You are confusing common use with correct use. This is a mistake many persons I have come in contact with make. Do you love any certain kind of food? Probably not, according to the correct use of the term "love"; probably so, according to the common use.

The correct use of "many" refers to a large and significant portion within a relatively defined context.

 

[volinbham]

The correct use of "many" refers to a large and significant portion within a relatively defined context.

Not my argument but where did you come up with this as the "correct" use. Most definitions say many is a large, indefinite number and make no many of proportion as a component of the definition (unlike most)

I would think it is correct usage to say many people have AIDS/HIV.

 

[ToineMac]

I think can summarize you guys argument to save a little time. Lets start with what we all agree on Terrorism and Terrorists are bad. In this world there are muslim terrorists. Not all muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are muslim but some of them are. While the overwhelming majority of muslims are not terrorist and don't support terrorism, a group of them which constitutes a large number are and do. So we shouldn't assume all muslims are terrorists because of the few (by comparison not volume) that are.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Not my argument but where did you come up with this as the "correct" use. Most definitions say many is a large, indefinite number and make no many of proportion as a component of the definition (unlike most)

I posted the definitions of "many", "large", and "relative" above. "Many" certainly includes proportion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Gator H8R]

What did I mess up?

Murderer.

 

[OJ]

Murderer.

lol:

 

[hndog609]

You cannot define something as a relative term and then remove it from its context.

Perhaps in a total vacuum but we'd lose useful meaning with ma...I means scads of words if there weren't context attached to them. Big/small/fat/tall/strong/fast/and on and on and on. Are you telling me that every time somebody gives a description of somebody as being "tall" you are forced to ask "For an NBA center or a pygmy?"?

50M persons are not many persons. 50M Americans are many Americans.

I see no possible way to rationalize the assembling the populations of Trinidad and Tobago/Etonia/Gabon/Guinea-Bissau/Quatar/Gambia/Botswana/Slovenia/Macedonia/Lesotho/Latvia/Namibia/Oman/Jamaica/Kuwait/Mongolia/Albania/Lithuania/Armenia/Uruguay & Panama anywhere on this planet and not have that number equate to "many" people.


As long as the context implies a comparison between the stars visible on a clear night versus a cloudy night. As for the entire cosmos, no, there are not many stars visible on any night, from Earth.

Why the couds? Why the cosmos? Why any comparison? On a clear dark night you hike your happys arse out into the open and look up. You see stars. How is "many" not an accurate description? You have no actual number and we damn sure can't use things along the lines of "few" or "several" so what's wrong with "many"?


There are not many persons infected with nor affected by HIV/AIDS.

Clearly we are spending far too much money on the issue.

The context and qualification here is as compared to other football programs. UT does not have many fans as compared to the Yankees, Man U, or the Indian National Cricket Team.

I wonder how many (damnit!) people have been fighting their way through Neland traffic on gameday that didn't realize there were not, in fact, "many" people going to the game.



It is not just one aspect. You are confusing common use with correct use. This is a mistake many persons I have come in contact with make. Do you love any certain kind of food? Probably not, according to the correct use of the term "love"; probably so, according to the common use.

The correct use of "many" refers to a large and significant portion within a relatively defined context.

So for the edification of myself (and I'm still pretty dubious) and others exactly how would you quantify the number of stars seen on a clear dark night, other than an explicit numerical value?

And your use of "love" is another example. You ONLY think of it as being applicable in one sense though it has others. In fact food is the specific example used on the merriam-webster site;


3
positive regard for something <a love of chocolate, which I will pay anything to indulge>

dictionary.com cited music but the same thing.

 

[sjt18]

I disagree with the decision but it was NY's to make. That is the way federalism should work.

 

[sjt18]

Not at all. The context is qualified by the subject matter. When speaking of a group with a population of 1.2B, 50M is not large and therefore it is not many.
:

One of the communist revolutionaries said that all you need for a successful revolution was 2% of the population willing to fight to the death.

 

[sjt18]

If 50,000,000 Muslims were either terrorist or were complicit in acts of terror, that would register at less than 5%. I would not use the term "many" referring to such a group.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

50 million would easily constitute the largest army the world has ever known also...

That number also becomes far more significant when in "many" places the "majority" does nothing to stand up to the radicals.