Liberal Logic 101

[JohnStOnge]

Jon, you aren't convincing anyone. Just go home. You're bad at things.

Assuming you're talking about me and you just missed typing the "h", I may not be convincing anyone. But I am showing anyone who already agrees with me that arguments from the other side, such as yours, are vacant.

[youngterrier]

Just keep posting, you're doing a great job.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

WHAT IN THE FUCK DOES GAY MARRIAGE HAVE TO DO WITH YOU?!

This is getting fucking old.

For Christ sake man, even if homosexuality is a "disorder" as you define it (and I'm extremely skeptical of such claim) we still make exception to rules because such rules are actually a hindrance on people, whereas making an exception helps said people and in effect reaps positive benefits for the rest of society.

You're basically saying fuck special ed classes, fuck handicap ramps, fuck wearing glasses, etc.

The lack of legal endorsement does not make such things go away and the endorsement of said activities effects has no effect on the rest of society, except positive, namely economic.

People in special ed classes can graduate high school, go to tech school, learn a trade, and contribute to society.

People who are handicap and use ramps can contribute more to society than those who have no access to said ramps.

People who decide to wear glasses when they need them contribute more to society and are less of a danger to the ones around them.

In the same sense, allowing gays to marry reaps positive economic and social benefits for said people, of which said money ripples out in the rest of the economy and we all benefit.

Because this discussion lacks coherent sense on your part, I will endorse the same kind of logic leaps in saying that , if you are against gay marriage you're pro higher taxes, pro-big government, pro government regulating people's personal life.

You stand in the way of economic stimulus and tax cuts.

So basically, you're a fascist.

You heard it here first guys. JSO admits he's a fascist.

[BlueHen86]

Just keep posting, you're doing a great job.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

I don;t have to. You're my answer. Your ignorance is one of the things they are fighting against.

[Skjellyfetti]

Jon Stewart nails the Chik-fil-a issue:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... k-blockers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

So help me out here as I am a bit confused.

Dan Cathy says he supports the traditional definition of marriage and Rahm Emanuel says Cathy does not reflect Chicago values and his company is not welcome.

Louis Farrakhan, who is very anti-semitic goes much farther in condemning homosexuality, which Cathy did not, blasts Obama for flip-flopping on gay marriage to support it and Rahm Emanuel partners with Farrakhan in Chicago.

Why would Cathy be lamblasted and Farrakhan embraced?

Is it racial because Cathy is white and Farrakhan is black?

Is it because Cathy is a conservative and Farrakhan is not?

Or is it a calculated, cynical political response?

I'm a bit confused as to what Liberal Logic thought holds here...

[death dealer]

I never called out Dan Cathy specifically. As I said elsewhere, I'm sure there are some "true believers", for all I know Mr. Cathy is one of them. My opinion, however, is that most anti-gay people are motivated by hate. Perhaps I should have said ignorance, but either way, they use religion to hide their true motivation.

That we can agree upon. But that's a condition not a motivation. Stupidity might be a better term. Ignorance indicates a mere lack of information, as if they can be taught the correct answer. I live among enough of them to know better.

[death dealer]

Perhaps I should have said ignorance

Ignorance with respect to what? That "ignorance" thing is a common assertion associated with "progression/liberal" positions. It implies the attitude that," if only people understood things and knew as much about things as us enlightened progressives/liberals do, they would agree with our position."

What is it that you think opponents of homosexual marriage in general don't know? Do you not think they know that the "establishment" as represented by groups such as the American Psychiatric Association have decreed that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder by virtue of the way in which they have defined psychiatric disorders? Do you think that they do not know about the "homosexuality is normal in nature" arguments proffered by people such as Bruce Bagemihl in his book "Biological Exhuberance?"

Just exactly what is it that you thing they are "ignorant" about in terms of not knowing about it?

I'll answer your question. Again, ignorance is probably not the best term. I used stupidity, but that's really not fair either, and kinda mean. I think maybe they are just socially indoctrinated, genetically defective, or a little of both. It applies to lots of issues, but the most glaring two are homosexuality and evolution. You can pull whatever obscure, wierd backwater information you want to try to justify scientifically incorrect opinions based upon a book written by goat herders in the desert, and I know you will, but the fact is that the truely scientific empirical evidence supports the more modern opinion that a) homosexuality is a naturally occuring variant in nature, and b) the Earth and all life on it is the result of a process that includes something similar to the process we know as evolution, and not some magical godhead who zapped it into existence a few thousand years ago. You call these ideas progressive/liberal to cast dispersions upon them. I simply call them logical facts that any intelligent reasonable person could deduce from the easily obtained evidence.

[kalm]

Ignorance with respect to what? That "ignorance" thing is a common assertion associated with "progression/liberal" positions. It implies the attitude that," if only people understood things and knew as much about things as us enlightened progressives/liberals do, they would agree with our position."

What is it that you think opponents of homosexual marriage in general don't know? Do you not think they know that the "establishment" as represented by groups such as the American Psychiatric Association have decreed that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder by virtue of the way in which they have defined psychiatric disorders? Do you think that they do not know about the "homosexuality is normal in nature" arguments proffered by people such as Bruce Bagemihl in his book "Biological Exhuberance?"

Just exactly what is it that you thing they are "ignorant" about in terms of not knowing about it?

I'll answer your question. Again, ignorance is probably not the best term. I used stupidity, but that's really not fair either, and kinda mean. I think maybe they are just socially indoctrinated, genetically defective, or a little of both. It applies to lots of issues, but the most glaring two are homosexuality and evolution. You can pull whatever obscure, wierd backwater information you want to try to justify scientifically incorrect opinions based upon a book written by goat herders in the desert, and I know you ewill, but the fact is that the truely scientific empirical evidence supports the more modern opinion that a) homosexuality is a naturally occuring variant in nature, and b) the Earth and all life on it is the result of a process that includes something similar to the process we know as evolution, and not some magical godhead who zapped it into existence a few thousand years ago. You call these ideas progressive/liberal to cast dispersions upon them. I simply call them logical facts that any intelligent reasonable person could deduce from the easily obtained evidence.

Now you've done it.

[death dealer]

Now you've done it.

I know. I'm a glutton for punishment.

[LeadBolt]

Had one for Bill...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2zMhY65mYU&feature=plcp[/youtube]