APP - Ask me about social conservatism

[DamnYankee]

Neither is a religious issue. Traditional family structure is the basis of a civilized society, and traditional marriage sanctioned by the state is a means to strengthen that structure.

 

[WinterBorn]

Neither is a religious issue. Traditional family structure is the basis of a civilized society, and traditional marriage sanctioned by the state is a means to strengthen that structure.

Total nonsense hidden in party-line propaganda. The gay marriage would strengthen the state as much as straight marriages does. And "tradition" is a great word for "we don't want change".

BTW, the best basis for society is mutual respect for different beliefs.

 

[DamnYankee]

That's merely your opinion, without basis. When you encourage something you get more of it, and the same goes for abnormal and perverted behavior.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's merely your opinion, without basis. When you encourage something you get more of it, and the same goes for abnormal and perverted behavior.

Not purely opinion without basis. You claim marriage is the important to the state, and that is why they sanction it. And yet, domestic violence is the number one cause of hospitalization for women. Divorce causes untold harm to families, children's psyche, and personal & business finances. Gay marriages certainly wouldn't do more harm than straight marriages. And since the structure is the same (even without opposite genders), the benefits to society are the same. You get two parent families, adoptive parents for orphans, and families settling down.

You think people are gay because they were encouraged? In a thread quite a while back, didn't you say people "became gay" to rebel?

No, peopl are gay in spite ofthe hostilities against them. And until you refuse to marry straight couples who engage in "abnormal' or (what you consider) "perverted behavior", it is clearly discrimination.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I did answer your question, if you need more proof look at your hands or feet and count them; I am assuming you are a normal human being. If not normal, go to a mall and do the math. If you still get three, please consult others with this problem, for it is in others that you get confirmation you are correct or wrong. In the same manner I have used addition, if you are insane or from another planet that could excuse you. But you refuse to answer my question, which I will phrase one more time in a slightly modified form to help you, tell me why libertarianism is a viable political theory given it exists nowhere except in some minds? See we can even leave toothfairism out of the equation.

btw Kripke uses 'quus' as the sort of meaningless argument you give with a math that does not exist.

1) No, you have not answered my question, and probably never will.
2) Libertarianism is not an end, it is a means to end. The end is American principles and stability. The defense of civil liberties, fiscal restraint and balanced budgets, less control of civil authorities over the people, etc. The only two ideologies which really lead to something manifest are communism and anarchy.

 

[midcan5]

"You learned the concept 'pain' when you learned language." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Again with the straw men. Why are you so afraid to debate the stated agenda?

I think you need to look up strawman argument, but I should have used 'Intelligent Design' (ID) as that was the next iteration of subterfuge used to hide the religious component of the conservative fight against evolution. But other religions accept evolution as fact pointing out again that the list you present is simply an imposition of your values on society and education. There is no need for a strawman as the text you posted contains the points that are contrary to the values our republic defined on its creation.

1) No, you have not answered my question, and probably never will.
2) Libertarianism is not an end, it is a means to end. The end is American principles and stability. The defense of civil liberties, fiscal restraint and balanced budgets, less control of civil authorities over the people, etc. The only two ideologies which really lead to something manifest are communism and anarchy.

1. I answered it, if I traveled anywhere in this world and held two items it would be the same. If you think this sort of absurd (meaningless) point is worth pursing I'd suggest you use it in your everyday life. If you do that, then I, and others will know you're insane. You may want to check out Saul Kripke's book on the topic and/or Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investgations. 'On Rules and private langauge' is a interesting read. "Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgment." Ludwig Wittgenstein

2. Finally an answer! Toothfairism is about 'American principles and stability' too, isn't that a coincidence? You see we are in agreement finally. Since both L and T are about positive goals and neither has anything specific they can point to as an accomplishment maybe we should just abandon them both and give old constitutional democracy a try? If both L and T aim for our current preamble, it seems unnecessary that we muddy the waters with more words and concepts that already exist? That seems true unless there is something about L that you did not mention, or if I missed some part of it? Could I have missed something or could you have? Interesting, don't you think.


"The answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words." Wittgenstein

 

[DamnYankee]

I think you need to look up strawman argument, but I should have used 'Intelligent Design' (ID) as that was the next iteration of subterfuge used to hide the religious component of the conservative fight against evolution. But other religions accept evolution as fact pointing out again that the list you present is simply an imposition of your values on society and education. There is no need for a strawman as the text you posted contains the points that are contrary to the values our republic defined on its creation.

ID is not part of the stated agenda. Why don't you argue against the stated agenda instead of making up an argument and arguing against that? By the way, I just defined strawman for you.

 

[Minister of Truth]

2. Finally an answer! Toothfairism is about 'American principles and stability' too, isn't that a coincidence? You see we are in agreement finally. Since both L and T are about positive goals and neither has anything specific they can point to as an accomplishment maybe we should just abandon them both and give old constitutional democracy a try? If both L and T aim for our current preamble, it seems unnecessary that we muddy the waters with more words and concepts that already exist? That seems true unless there is something about L that you did not mention, or if I missed some part of it? Could I have missed something or could you have? Interesting, don't you think.


"The answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words." Wittgenstein

Indeed there is - a proper understanding (or at least, respect for) said principles.

 

[midcan5]

ID is not part of the stated agenda. Why don't you argue against the stated agenda instead of making up an argument and arguing against that? By the way, I just defined strawman for you.

"Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming" Surely you know what that means or is it really necessary to tell you? Try again.

 

[DamnYankee]

"Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming" Surely you know what that means or is it really necessary to tell you? Try again.

That topic was discussed early on in this thread. Do you have a question that wasn't addressed?