Search results for query: * (refine your search)

Ookie-dookie. To anyone who's interested - feel free to go and read that discussion. I posted the link to it. BJ posted something of substance? Well - I'll check his post/s and get back to you. As for you - apparently, other than banter, you have nothing to substantiate your claims with.

So - you got tired of pointing out my "misinterpretations" of peer-reviewed papers and, instead, called for 'discussions' in the forum, because these are so much more rigorous and harder to misrepresent? This is your excuse, RM? Really? You may want to read that thread and jog your memory: I...

T'Girl, look, for example, at Dennis, Chemahkuu, or beamMe - they hide behind insult flavored non-sequiturs, but at least they know what they want to write. But your post - it's all over the place. On the off chance you actually wanted to argue my post, here it is...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9027856&postcount=99 DarthTom and you started the foray into this topic - with no 'citation' whatsoever. I merely came with a high-information article on this issue from reputable sources - http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html. Let me guess...

So - no promised 'easily' arguing the article's* accuracy. In exchange, you're all about 'citations' these days. I recall you saying something about this being a forum for discussion and you getting tired of hunting for peer-reviewed papers to keep up with me (this was in the 'Science and...

If you could 'easily' argue its accuracy, then prove your words by doing it - 'easily' - as opposed to ineffectively trying to support your point by bragging. So - the dogma before idols, I see.

So - you support the dogma because your group supports it (and you import ready-made rationalizations, with no thought as to the dogma's consistency)? There's an euphemism for this - political correctness. PS - I see you keep inquiring as to my position on the issue - if you want me to answer...

If your justification were 'not supporting prejudice' you would support polygamy - and a LOT of other practices. Since you do not support this LOT of practices, what you've just posted is a rationalization, not a reason. We've already been over this. Your attempts at consistency were...

BillJ And you've just resorted to spewing ad personams based on alarmist predictions about population growth (take a look at population predictions for after 2050/wealthy countries population predictions while you're at it). To be frank, I didn't think it would take you this long to resort to...

So - you cannot argue its accuracy; as such, you resort to dictums, ad personams and group behavior incentives - standard tactics for religious indoctrination, not for rational argument. As said - It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it? PS - I took the link for the article from...

Much thought? You actually mean a deduction easy for a 6-year old is 'much thought'? There's only one category of memes where this blindness to logic and reason holds: religious doctrines. Arbitrarily naming homosexuality good/optimistic/enlightened/"better future" as opposed to "the state of...

The rationalization given for the advocacy is that 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good'. This leads - by a very simple deduction - to advocating for homosexuality, but for polygamy, as well. If people are advocating for homosexuality, but not for polygamy, that means the...

teacake Well, future teacake, have fun in that nursing home. :evil:

teacake What I would wish for in a hypothetical future star trek series is a more appropriate question. 'Living there better' imbues star trek with far more reality than it possesses. How about this: I would primarily wish for star trek to concentrate on telling a good/entertaining story...

teacake Indeed. Pretending I didn't just nullify your 'arguments' and repeating them should work too - after I point this out, of course.

teacake As said: Really, everyone - if you want to maintain/rebuild the thin veneer of consistency you wish for your beliefs to have, you must only write in this thread a few walls of text filled with rhetoric and various logical fallacies. I won't bother answering to it all - if at all. It's...

Gov Kodos I see you are living in a teen soap-opera. You desperately try to, at any rate. Well - you can try to redefine the concept of 'family' all you want; your redefined concept will be, as opposed to of crucial importance to society (creating the next generation and all that), useless...

It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Feel free not to discuss it. I will feel free to point out just how inconsistent your position is.

You do know we're not living in a teen soap-opera, yes? A 'family' is not 2 people who go on dates, a family is 2 people who have and raise children. An endeavor of crucial importance to society - which is why the family gained its legal protection. Now that I think of it, polygamous couples...