Tim Hardaway

"I notice that every one advocating gays is avoiding the comparison to nudists or pedophiles. Both are valid arguments....Enlighten us Rednecks and show us the better way! "

Geez, i gotta do everything around here. do u know what valid means? We disagree on your premises. YOu argument is valid, i reject your premise, and thus its not sound. if fact, i dont know what exactly ur argumetn is. but i reject this

Your argument:
1) homosexuality is a choice ...then youve got a something like
2) homosexuality is wrong
3) those who do what is wrong by choice are/do...(i dont know waht u would put here....hate? outlaw? discriminate?)
4) Ergo, we should (Blank..hate? outlaw? Discriminate?) homosexuals

now, everything follows (that makes it valid). but its not sound...i reject premise #1.

refresher:
validity--> IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true. u've got this

soundness--> The premises ARE true, thus the conclusion is true. you dont have this, at least i dont think so.

but.....i think you made an anology of nudists early....it was a good one, a correct one. But i dont grant ur premise #1, that homosexuality is a choice (which obviously nudism is)...so therefore i dont find the analogy, well, analogous.

so there u have it.

[jtw61194]

Prejudice is what I said, but I think bigot could also be used. I think bigot would fit this situation, but the definition uses "especially race and ethnic" when describing the hatred and intolerance. So...

"i'm still waiting for the difference between why gays are treated one way for their choice and nudists are treated another way. "

b/c apparently one is either

1) deemed inappropriate by society to the extent it warrents being outlawed and the other isnt

or

2) one is seen as a choice and the other isnt

I want to be careful here. we are about to get into a HUGE discussion on law and lawful behavior...who makes laws? what are laws? who has the right to make them?

So were limited here, b/c i dont want to digress into that, simply for the fact the it could not possibly be addressed fully here. People spend there whole lives studying that, so i dont think we can do it justice (haha) here.

[sup-rbeast]

Don't try to spin this to suit your needs. There is no proof that being a nudist or being gay is anything more than a choice made by an individual. It's easy to reject an argument when there is no way to spin it for your benefit. Let's not go on whether or not either one of us think it is a choice or genetic. Let's just say it is a given that neither has been proven to be genetic. This is no more than a comparison of 2 choices. Because we can say that gays can choose to live the lifestyle the same as a nudist chooses to live his or hers. I'm not asking for whether or not you condone it. I'm asking you to state why one choice has legal protection and one doesn't when both are deemed harmful to society. What say you now? Should we all have the right to run around naked everyday just because we choose to?

"Kinda like what you folks on the more liberal side are trying to do with bigotry and homophobia?"


I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE how u just coined me 'you folks...liberal side'. Im as about as conservative as they come, but im definately against hate and ignorance.

and, yes, to some extent you are correct, there is a very fine line sometimes, and sometimes they are used interchangable...i might have done this earlier....for some people they are one in the same, many homophobes are bigots. but if you are merely homophobic and not a bigot, then i apologize for incorrectly grouping you in there....

and now i think i deserve an apology for the "you folks" comment

[Ironlung]

[ QUOTE ]
I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE how u just coined me 'you folks...liberal side'. Im as about as conservative as they come, but im definately against hate and ignorance.



[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I like W and Bill though.

[sup-rbeast]

I voted for clinton twice, gore once and kerry once. I do this because I am liberal on some things. But when it destroys our society I can draw the line through good common sense. And folks say well if ya vote democrat you vote for the party that advocates gay rights. That argument would be right. But I also think that folks have enough common sense as voters to never let the minority of the country push the madority into becoming an advocate homosexuality. So far I have been right in this mode of thinking. I will go ahead and tell you why it is that gays have protection for their choice while nudists don't. Gays have a political base in California, New York, and Massachusetts. The nudists don't. It's not a question of one being more moral than the other...it boils down to politics.

"Don't try to spin this to suit your needs. There is no proof that being a nudist or being gay is anything more than a choice made by an individual. It's easy to reject an argument when there is no way to spin it for your benefit. Let's not go on whether or not either one of us think it is a choice or genetic. Let's just say it is a given that neither has been proven to be genetic. This is no more than a comparison of 2 choices. Because we can say that gays can choose to live the lifestyle the same as a nudist chooses to live his or hers. I'm not asking for whether or not you condone it. I'm asking you to state why one choice has legal protection and one doesn't when both are deemed harmful to society. What say you now? Should we all have the right to run around naked everyday just because we choose to? "

Dude, i aint spinnning it. its straight philosoph 101 argumentation. yknow, there are arguments ppl can just legitamtely and sincerely disagree on teh premises about, and thus whether the conclusion is true.

1) IT is possible that God exists
2) The concept god includes all possible perfections
3) Existence is a perfect
4) ergo, god exist.

Dude, that argument is like the one you and i are having. we just disagree on #1 in yours...just like ppl disagree on #1 in the ontological argument, and thus ppls believe in teh conclusion rests on #1. SO we cant ignore the CHOICE/NO CHOICE premise...its teh foundation for everything.

"both are deemed harmful to society"--theres not a lot i can say to that. i mean, you deem it harmful to society, or to the conception of the society in which you prefer to live.

You say there is no proof of it being genetic. Maybe, im not doctor, or geneticist. i hate science. but i take it neither are you. furthermore...what evidence do you have of it being a CHOICE, since obviously you are caught up on evidence. honestly, i got a better shot at getting evidence from genetics then you do from choices...which are kinda shadowy things anyway...

what makes us do what we do? do we have free will? or are we determined to do everything?? is determinism true?

again, like the law stuff, this is an impossible topic to address. all we can say is that we disagree on ur premise #1

[sup-rbeast]

A choice is any action done intentionally by an individual. Living either lifestyle can easily be defined as a choice. And this argument is different from the one you suggest about god cuz we can see homosexuality and nudity. We're not speculating on somethin no one has any way of knowing. There are some things about both lifestyles that we can see and prove. I've had those phil. classes too. We can debate on and on. But the facts are..homosexuality can not be proven to be genetic..but because the gays choose to live the lifestyle, it can be deemed a choice. There are givens here that can be debated. We don't have to rely on faith in something we have never seen. So the analogy is valid and no one has shown a difference yet.

[plantsman]

Evidence from both medical and psychology researchers indicates that homosexuality is primarily a learned behavior.