Lucky's pick 02-04-06

[JoyfulRook]

:dunce:​

:darwinsm:

So how is this guy still in the Green-square land?

 

[allsmiles]

You still have to add some qualifiers because as it stands it is saying ALL citizens are good which is not true.

then you folks need to bring something, anything to the table.

what qualifiers would you accept?

and i'm not going to exclude homosexuals until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they do, as long as it is consensual, is as bad as rape and murder.

i would say, yet again, that murderers and rapists exclude themselves from civilized society and the privileges of being a citizen.

 

[kmoney]

then you folks need to bring something, anything to the table.

what qualifiers would you accept?

and i'm not going to exclude homosexuals until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they do, as long as it is consensual, is as bad as rape and murder.

i would say, yet again, that murderers and rapists exclude themselves from civilized society and the privileges of being a citizen.

I guess an obvious qualifer for me is to exclude criminals. I already said I'm working from the assumption that homosexuals aren't bad for society. From there I said qualifiers would still need to be added.

 

[koban]

then you folks need to bring something, anything to the table.

what qualifiers would you accept?

How about "some" or "most" ?

and i'm not going to exclude homosexuals until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they do, as long as it is consensual, is as bad as rape and murder.

Really? It has to be shown to be as bad as rape and murder. It's not enough that it's bad in it's own right?

i would say, yet again, that murderers and rapists exclude themselves from civilized society and the privileges of being a citizen.

You're welcome to say that, but it does not make it so. They're still members of the population and (in this country, anyways) considered citizens.

 

[allsmiles]

koban can bite me

koban can bite me

I guess an obvious qualifer for me is to exclude criminals. I already said I'm working from the assumption that homosexuals aren't bad for society. From there I said qualifiers would still need to be added.

 

[allsmiles]

:doh:

at any rate, that's fine K$.

what other qualifiers would you add, other than excluding criminals?

 

[kmoney]

:doh:

at any rate, that's fine K$.

what other qualifiers would you add, other than excluding criminals?

I don't know. This isn't exactly something I want to delve into. All I wanted to say is that even if you do deny that homosexuals are bad for society, the original statment needed some revising.

 

[allsmiles]

fair enough.

take it easy.

AS

 

[Army of One]

i've been sitting here doing this through the whole thread: :bangbang:

i've been asking over and over and over and over again for someone to bridge the gap between rape and murder and consensual sex between two adult americans.

until that's done you folks are WAY out of line in making such a comparison, and it makes Poly's blatant word twisting even worse.

No one was saying that Murder/Rape=Homosexuality, you dolt! Poly merely used those actions to demonstrate the error in No Worries' logic. Why is that so hard to wrap your drug damaged brain around?

 

[Lighthouse]

well, let's break the mold and actually look at what No Worries said for a change, rather than the running trend of debating what you all would have liked for him to have said



is this untrue? does a society not need citizens? can a society be a society without citizens? and if a society needs citizens to be such, than having citizens is good for society. is there anything untrue about that?

No Worries wasn't talking about a citizen Lighthouse, he was talking about citizens. now, if he were making a case by case argument based on individuals than i'm inclined to believe that his position would have been a little more specific.



the argument comes down to whether or not homosexuals are good or bad citizens, not the individual, but the group as a whole. we're not talking about rapists, we're not talking about murderers. if murderers or rapists were what No Worries was talking about he would have specified.

Poly twisted his words, unabashedly and expects the plainly and deliberately changed words to stand as some sort of argument, and i don't think that's legitimate.:nono:

I've already explained why the logic was flawed, and if you can't get that, I'm not surprised.

Whether or not homos are good for society is beside the point. Just because some people are citizens doesn't mean they are good for society. If someone is good for society, it is not because they are a citizen. It's for other reasons. And if they are not good for society they should not be citizens.

 

[Vaquero45]

AS, try this.

Cooking requires heat. So heat is good for cooking. Nuclear bombs make heat. Nuclear bombs are hence good for cooking.


Well a society needs citizens. So citizens are good for society. Homosexuals are citizens. Homosexuals are hence good for society.

Same logical error.

Not all heat is good for cooking.

Not all citizens are good for society.

 

[Shalom]

AS, try this.

Cooking requires heat. So heat is good for cooking. Nuclear bombs make heat. Nuclear bombs are hence good for cooking.


Well a society needs citizens. So citizens are good for society. Homosexuals are citizens. Homosexuals are hence good for society.

Same logical error.

Not all heat is good for cooking.

Not all citizens are good for society.

Well that pretty much sums it up. :thumb: