BTW, should I also stone my woman to death if she cheats on me?
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Faelynn LeAndris who doth quote:
You know, I really hate it when you guys pull the whole fallacy in logic thing.
I can see how it can be irritating, but it's a real, REAL handy way to point out that what a person is saying is completely wrong without having to go through the lengthy process of explaining why. No reason to re-invent the wheel, we already know that appeals to tradition and slippery slope arguments are all demonstrably wrong.
quote:
Pvednesing:
Actually many higher order mammals have the capacity for some lesser degree of cognitive thought. You can teach an ape sign-language for example.
Monkey see, monkey do. It's a human desire to believe that an ape's mimicry of human hand-signs when provided certain stimulii is a form of cognative thought or communication, but apes don't say prases that they aren't taught to say. Show me an ape that can write (or dictate) even a paragraph of it's own, original work, then I'll consent that they have a capacity for cognative thought.
quote:
Zaza wrote this stupid crap:
GOD SAYS SO. HALLELUJAH.BTW, should I also stone my woman to death if she cheats on me?
Yes! It's in a book, after all.
quote:
Zaza came out of the closet to say:
BTW, should I also stone my woman to death if she cheats on me?
The LORD says YES.
quote:
Karnaj's account was hax0red to write:
I don't think I getcha
I don't think I'm going to explain this right, but I'll try. Think of it like there is this one person who will TO A FAULT follow the law, because that is the RIGHT thing to do, but thats all he does is follow the law without really justifying why.
It doesn't really apply to the fallacies THEMSELVES, since they are universally correct, it just feels the same in some ways when used by a person who does nothing BUT cite the fallacies without actually contributing anything else.
Does that make sense?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Maradon!!
Monkey see, monkey do. It's a human desire to believe that an ape's mimicry of human hand-signs when provided certain stimulii is a form of cognative thought or communication, but apes don't say prases that they aren't taught to say. Show me an ape that can write (or dictate) even a paragraph of it's own, original work, then I'll consent that they have a capacity for cognative thought.
They taught words to Koko (Or whatever that female ape's name was), and when showed a video of potential mates, she signed "toilet" to one, and "happy" to another.
Yet the one they paired her with she still didn't fuck. Stupid ape. Guess personality counts. 
quote:
x--Faelynn LeAndrisO-('-'Q) :
Not factual, but it is kinda common for parents to project onto thier kids, by way of thier own values and such, which could make things sway in the other direction. In a way I can see how, mentally, it could affect a childs outlook as they develop, and sway thier tendancies.
Sooooo gay parents would probably raise gay kids.
so? are straight kids somehow better off than gay kids?
quote:
Maradon! thought about the meaning of life:
Sooooo gay parents would probably raise gay kids.so? are straight kids somehow better off than gay kids?
Yes. Because GOD said so.
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Faelynn LeAndris with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Wouldn't that also be an appeal to emotion, since by the way it is written it is used in a way to try and generate a 'feeling' on the subject and not an actual fact based responce? Basically by saying "I would feel this way" making the reader think more about how THEY would feel about it?
The really annoying thing about spotting fallacies is that you can name them multiple ones with equal validity, sometimes because certain fallacies are subsets of others or apply only in specific cases. I named it a red herring because a red herring is any attempt to divert attention from the main argument to a different topic which may or may not be related. It goes something like this:
Topic A(gay marriage) is being discussed,
Topic B(traditional family structure) is introduced as relating to Topic A,
Topic A is either abandoned or obfuscated.
In our case, however, Topic B was spotted as the red herring, and subsequently dismissed as invalid.
That said, the specific arguments asserted could very well be considered an appeal to emotion, or an appeal to pity (THINK OF THE POOR ADOPTED CHILDREN). I just took the safe way out.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Delphi Aegis came out of the closet to say:
Yet the one they paired her with she still didn't fuck. Stupid ape. Guess personality counts.
Fucking cocktease monkeys.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I can see how it can be irritating, but it's a real, REAL handy way to point out that what a person is saying is completely wrong without having to go through the lengthy process of explaining why. No reason to re-invent the wheel, we already know that appeals to tradition and slippery slope arguments are all demonstrably wrong..
Yeah, my points is mainly, it can get REALLY REALLY annoying when all they do is point out the fallacy to totally derail the argument as false, but thats all they do. They don't contribute anything that way. 
A Person says something, B Person comes in and points out a fallacy to say person A's argument is completely wrong because of this fallacy, but doesn't actually do anything. Just points out a fallacy, but not whats actually wrong and why, or add to the debate at all.
I had to post that bit on "are straight kids better off than gay kids" twice 
quote:
Maradon! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Why are some of my posts vanishing?I had to post that bit on "are straight kids better off than gay kids" twice
God's Will.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Zaza wrote:
God's Will.
*smites Zaza*
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
Why are some of my posts vanishing?I had to post that bit on "are straight kids better off than gay kids" twice
mrr?
quote:
Noxhil spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Even some of the more educated and talented debaters I know conceed that the debate against gay marriage (they are anti-gay marriage) is based primarily on it being "wrong" in the bible, and the fact that it is unnatural. So to ever convince someone who is anti-gay marriage that they are wrong you CANNOT USE FACTS. You need to argue abstract concepts and tolerance, neither of which any of you did.
Wait a sec. Those last two sentences do not make sense. Are you saying that to prove that gay marriage is okay, you have to use made up shit and not facts?
quote:
So quoth Drysart:
mrr?
I have also seen some posts that once posted, if I go back, and someone else has posted, that post may change positions.
Example.
Mar Post
Karnaj Post
I view the thread and see this order
I come back and view it a second time and instead I see
Karnaj post
Mar Post
Someone elses post.
It's like every so often it reorders itself. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 04-03-2004 at 10:11 PM.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Even some of the more educated and talented debaters I know conceed that the debate against gay marriage (they are anti-gay marriage) is based primarily on it being "wrong" in the bible, and the fact that it is unnatural.
Well we're already established that it's not unnatural, so that only leaves the bible argument --- and our Constitution is quite clear on the fact that Congress shall not pass laws establishing religion. By legislating the viewpoints of one specific religion; that's exacly what they'd be doing.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Faelynn LeAndris liberally with Old Spice!
I don't think I'm going to explain this right, but I'll try. Think of it like there is this one person who will TO A FAULT follow the law, because that is the RIGHT thing to do, but thats all he does is follow the law without really justifying why.It doesn't really apply to the fallacies THEMSELVES, since they are universally correct, it just feels the same in some ways when used by a person who does nothing BUT cite the fallacies without actually contributing anything else.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I guess. I'd call that person a dick, but they'd still be correct.
Oh, and logic is NOT, I repeat, an absolute law governing the universe. As an example, Euclidean geometry's rules are logically consistent, but they are not universal.
Logic is a tool that we can use to determine if a proposition is valid, inferences correct, or conclusions true. Since it's internally consistent, we be guaranteed its consistency regardless of personal beliefs or inclinations, and that is why it's such an important part of rational thought and discourse.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Drysart got served! Drysart got served!
Well we're already established that it's not unnatural, so that only leaves the bible argument --- and our Constitution is quite clear on the fact that Congress shall not pass laws establishing religion. By legislating the viewpoints of one specific religion; that's exacly what they'd be doing.
The argument from the Bible is an appeal to authority. He first has to prove that it's a valid source before it can be considered. And since that entails demonstrating God's existence...
EDIT: And not just any God, but God as described in the Bible. Karnaj fucked around with this message on 04-03-2004 at 10:19 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
1) Prostitution should be legalized, under the consideration that it would cut down crime and boost the economy (assuming it's treated like an actual business).
2) I'm leery of gay sex, but it's really nobody's business but the queers'.
3) I am in full favor of anything that involves Morgan Webb naked.
quote:
Delphi Aegis was naked while typing this:
Isn't it "statutory" rape? Maybe there is a ch in it, I dunno. But it's been spelled three times like that, so I doubt.
Yes it's "Statutory" because it's rape on the statute of what constitutes a rape, rather than a claim of rape by those involved. Statutory rape usually refers to an act of non-forced sexual intercourse where one or more parties is too young to give consent. If it was forced, it usually falls under the usual rules of rape in most states.
As it applies to this...well...After the incident with Traci Lords (remember her? Big porn star in the early 80's til it turned out she used a fake ID to lie about her age and perform in porn; when she came clean it caused quite a nasty little tidal wave in the industry that it didn't recover fully from until the internet became big in the mid-90's) I imagine any and all sex-related industries are a lot more careful about the age of participants. Likewise, all porn stars' legal records are kept on public filing for anyone to look into. On top of that, there's a number of groups watching out for the porn stars themselves, keeping track of HIV and AIDS tests, etc.
If there was anything like that for legalized prostitution businesses, like a state registry anyone could check out beforehand, with regular checkups based on work load, it could be regulated. You'd still have offenders, but the numbers would come down.
Pragmatically, however, if you jettison morals and such for a moment, the question is one of overall benefit. Economically, what sort of realistic returns would you see if prostitution were legalized in some form? You could tax it, but you'd have to keep in mind that you'd have to police offenders. You could pass legislation to countermand the fact that more regulations and taxations means that legal prostitution would cost more than some hooker on a street corner (probably harder punishments on those who violate the laws), but what sort of long term work would you have to do in order to get that up and running?
In any case, if the overall pragmatic benefits were in favor of prostitution (lower vice crime rates, slowing the spread of disease, new taxable revenue), then it's simply a matter of overcoming outdated morality. If it's a matter of prostitution realistically causing more hassle than it's worth (only marginally lower vice crime rates, marginal control over health issues, taxable revenue that goes entirely towards policing violators of the legalized prostitution plus costs more out of taxpayers pockets), then you haven't got a winner on your hands. If it balances out, then it falls to morality.
The problem with arguing pragmatism is that you only see the broad shape of things, not the map of how to get there. The other problem is that society in general likes tradition and often confuses it with morality. People, by and large, want today to be more or less like yesterday, so long as yesterday had it's good points and bad points, and was able to be gotten through. Unfortunately, it's hard to face that fact. It's hard to go with the flow and change when necessary to move forward. People try to be the rock in the stream rather than the water that flows.
So you end up seeing people arguing ethics and morality when they're as amorphous as an amoeba on a long enough continuum. Two hundred years ago, arranged marriages were still quite prevalent in anglo (whitey) society, and we had slaves. A hundred years ago we'd ditched slaves and arranged marriages were on their way out, but a black man could get sent to Leavenworth for boinking a white chick, and prison labor was essentially a replacement for slaves (and it was prisoners imprisoned by the laws of the time, not the laws now). Thirty years ago (roughly), segregation ended, arranged marriages are kooky throwbacks found in only a few cultures, and we use machines to do a lot of the menial labor we saved for slaves and prison labor in the past. Everything changes, and it changes fast.
Gays will eventually get the right to get married or have civil unions. You can't avoid that. Prostitution will likely eventually be legalized in some fashion. It's hard to avoid that. And from our perspective that might be unthinkable; the worst sort of sin you could commit. Just don't forget that at some point in the past I guarantee that your ancestors' peoples didn't get along and probably killed one another. Times change. The journey may take some surprising and, to the passengers on the ship at the time, disconcerting directions, but so long as the destination is the same, who cares?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
x--NoxhilO-('-'Q) :
Even some of the more educated and talented debaters I know conceed that the debate against gay marriage (they are anti-gay marriage) is based primarily on it being "wrong" in the bible, and the fact that it is unnatural. So to ever convince someone who is anti-gay marriage that they are wrong you CANNOT USE FACTS. You need to argue abstract concepts and tolerance, neither of which any of you did.
You're assuming we're trying to convince you that gay marriage is OK. On the contrary, we don't give a shit what you think. All we're arguing is that your opinion should not, in any way, be turned into legislation.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris came out of the closet to say:
It's like every so often it reorders itself.
I can't see what would cause that, but I added some explicit checking to make sure posts always come out of the database in the correct order. Let me know if you see anything odd again.
quote:
Drysart was listening to Cher while typing:
Hey! And while we're on the topic of legalizing stuff.... how can you possibly support legalizing prostitution but not support legalizing pot?
I wanted to mention that earlier, but some asshole would mention 'oh well it hurts people' or somethng.
quote:
Liam came out of the closet to say:
I wanted to mention that earlier, but some asshole would mention 'oh well it hurts people' or somethng.
Like being a whore is a walk in the park. 
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Knight Rider:
Hey! And while we're on the topic of legalizing stuff.... how can you possibly support legalizing prostitution but not support legalizing pot?
I support both.
Morality legislation has gotten us nowhere, but as long as there are nutjob judges and senators and congressmen with one book dictating what they're doing, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Edit: I think liam meant that Pot hurts people, Mr. Sart Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 04-03-2004 at 10:28 PM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Drysart said:
Hey! And while we're on the topic of legalizing stuff.... how can you possibly support legalizing prostitution but not support legalizing pot?
Well the only argument I can think of is that some dude who just got his bones jumped for $100 isn't going to wreck his car into me on the ride home, while some dude who just smoked $100 of marijuana and drives could.
But that's a shitty argument. If you regulate it the way you regulate alcohol it should be fine.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Knight Rider:
Hey! And while we're on the topic of legalizing stuff.... how can you possibly support legalizing prostitution but not support legalizing pot?
ohno pot hurtz people tho 
quote:
Drysart's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Hey! And while we're on the topic of legalizing stuff.... how can you possibly support legalizing prostitution but not support legalizing pot?
Second-hand high?
quote:
Delphi Aegis came out of the closet to say:
Edit: I think liam meant that Pot hurts people, Mr. Sart
So does my cock, but as of yet there hasn't been any substantial action in Congress to make it illegal.
quote:
JooJooFlop wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Second-hand high?
I've had potsmoke blown in my face. I didn't get high.
If it was a closed environs with poor ventilation, I could possibly see you getting high without actually tokin' on the bong. But people who don't wanna get high won't put themselves in that kind of situation anyway. And it'd still be subject to No public smoking laws.
quote:
Drysart screamed this from the crapper:
So does my cock, but as of yet there hasn't been any substantial action in Congress to make it illegal.
That's because every time they try to introduce legislation against your cock, it somehow stuffs itself into the mouth of the Congressman doing the talking. And if you've ever been to willshegag.com, you know that it's damn hard to talk with someone's dick in your mouth.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Vallo came out of the closet to say:
Wow, had I not gotten to this thread so late...I wouldn't have said anything because I have few real facts for most arguments anyway and, thusly, it wouldn't have mattered.
Hi there! Where are your friends?
Or maybe it's real and I'm talking out of my ass.
quote:
So quoth Liam:
I wanted to mention that earlier, but some asshole would mention 'oh well it hurts people' or somethng.
I'll be the first.
Hiring a hooker, assuming it is legal and has better health regulations and whatnot, to have sex will not have some idiot out running around getting into accidents because he is a moron who isn't performing up to speed anymore due to drug consumption. (So yeah, there are those 'good' pot heads who just sit at home and mind thier own, thats not the majority I knew growing up. But that of course makes it a personal experience view, but still.) This is a possibility with pot while not a possibility with having sex with a hooker.
It does not inherantly hurt either party in a physical manner, unless of course you start getting into all the fetishes and whatnot. Whereas it has physical side effects in the pot department.
Having sex with a hooker does not impare your judgement, or ability to perform in any way. (Not to say it wasn't impared before if you were married and this is just some quick piece of ass or something, but does not inherantly apply to having sex with the hooker directly)
Pot can be a dagerous tool being used, whereas having sex with a hooker is inherantly not dangerous.
quote:
Drysart's account was hax0red to write:
For the record, I do think prostitution should be legal, since I'm internally consistent in my viewpoints.
is zat so? 
