Whoa...drama...

[Inkara1]

Ah but you're trying to play semantics and aren't good enough at it. "Catholics are against abortion" is a perfectly valid statement and most would know exactly what you mean by it, unless they were trying to make an argument that wasn't there.

Apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I'm fully aware that saying that completes your plan of: 1. saying something stupid or untrue, 2. getting called on it, 3. spinning it, 4. finishing it off by accusing your opponent of "hate" or "white supremacy" or something, 5. spewing a bunch of bullshit that does nothing but annoy everyone until your opponent gets tired of it, and 6. then declaring yourself the winner and further accusing your opponent of "running away" from your "superior" "logic" when that's not actually the case.

So your more of a spelling guy than a comprehension kinda thing huh?

Since you seem to be lacking on both fronts, you're not qualified to speak on the subject.

Wait, so you thought when Cerise said something like "Mormons don't have a history of..." and the very next post was a "a history of mormons..." that I was responding to you?

Not me alone, but it was a response that would be made for the question I did pose, so it's reasonable to believe as I did. You'll also notice that it's common in thread such as this one to respond to someone after several posts have come between the question and response.

Further, you didn't actually counter Cerise's post: "At least they don't have a long history of stoning to death or otherwise killing anyone who believes contrary to their dogma. "
So what did you do? You distorted her position to be that Mormons don't have a history of violence, instead of her actual position, which is that Mormons don't have a history of killing anyone who doesn't believe in their dogma. You then attacked the distorted position. I do believe that is a textbook example of a "straw man."

Because it was obvious bullshit?

Projecting much?

Yes, exactly what you keep trying to do.

Projecting much?

Yeah, this is attributing something to someone that they didn't say "Judging the Muslims by their fundamentalists: bad. Judging the Mormons by their fundamentalists: good."

You've said that judging Muslims by their fundamentalists is wrong or that the majority do not match the spotlighted minority here, here, here, here, here, etc. That's not a bad thing, BTW. But then you said Mormons hate gays, and further, that they get violent against them. You then posted a link to a biased anti-Mormon Web site, with an essay about things fundamentalist Mormons had done. It's pretty obvious that you were not judging Islam by the fundies but were judging the LDS church by its fundies.

Try getting to know a few Mormons. You might be pleasantly surprised at the people, regardless of what you think of their religion.

I know, you're being a moron by thinking everyone doesn't know exactly what you meant.

Obviously everyone but you knows. Not my problem.

Holy shit! That's like your 3rd straw man in this one thread. It's like you have one pitch that keeps getting hit out of the park but you keep going back to it again and again.

I can guarantee it's not the "third straw man" I've used. A little exaggeration was used in response to your blatant straw man, sort of like how you always counter "Muslims kill people" with "Christians kill people more" and always counter "Obama did X wrong" with "Bush did X wrong worse."

I never said you'd deck any guy that hit on you (straw man). What I asked was why you said "probably" because you obviously left some doubt there on purpose.

Fuck. I wore the wrong kind of shoes. If only I'd known ahead of time all the bullshit that would be strewn about the place by you...

Well shit, then you don't understand false dilemmas either. Asking Cerise if she was a white supremacist was curiosity. If someone asked me I'd say "hell no". Where's the false dilemma exactly there Inkara?

Your argument fails to counter the "false dilemma" argument. From this link:
Bill: "Jill and I both support prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an athiest are you Jill?"
Jill could easily say "hell no," but that doesn't make it suddenly not a false dilemma.

 

[Gato_Solo]

This is getting ridiculous. Of course, thats to be expected, given the lack of respect for other people's property...

SALT LAKE CITY — A mass-kissing protest near the Mormon church temple Sunday drew a shouting match between gay activists and their critics.


For the second consecutive weekend, about 100 people gathered to stage a "kiss-in" to protest the treatment of two gay men cited for trespassing July 9 after they shared a kiss on the plaza owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both gay and straight couples exchanged kisses during the protest.

Demonstrators were greeted at the south entrance by a group of protesters carrying large signs that denounced homosexuality, prompting a heated verbal exchange.

Police say no one was arrested or cited, despite a large group exchanging kisses by a reflecting pool at the plaza's center.

"We didn't call the police. We didn't do anything," church spokeswoman Kim Farah said.

The church bought one block of Salt Lake City's Main Street to build a plaza in the 1990s alongside the Temple, where Mormon marriages and other religious rituals take place.

Matt Aune has said he and his partner, Derek Jones, exchanged a modest kiss at the plaza 11 days ago, but church officials contend their behavior was lewd.

"There was much more involved that a simple kiss of the cheek," Farah said in a statement Friday. "They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol."

More "He said, she said"...however...that does not justify the current protests...still on private property.

 

[2minkey]

you really don't like gays huh?

 

[Gonz]

what's wrong with happy people

 

[Gato_Solo]

you really don't like gays huh?

Has nothing to do with gay or straight in this. It has to do with acting an idiot on someone elses property.

 

[spike]

Apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I'm fully aware that saying that completes your plan of: 1. saying something stupid or untrue, 2. getting called on it, 3. spinning it, 4. finishing it off by accusing your opponent of "hate" or "white supremacy" or something, 5. spewing a bunch of bullshit that does nothing but annoy everyone until your opponent gets tired of it, and 6. then declaring yourself the winner and further accusing your opponent of "running away" from your "superior" "logic" when that's not actually the case.

Your plan seems to have been. 1. Try to spin something I said into what you wanted it to mean. 2. Get called on it. 3. Try to insist that your twist is better than reality. 3. Get shot down. 4. Go for a straw man. 5. Get called on it. 5. Go for another straw man......get called on it. 6. Rinse and repeat.

Since you seem to be lacking on both fronts, you're not qualified to speak on the subject.

While you claim to do it every day and are severely lacking it says more about your qualifications.

You distorted her position to be that Mormons don't have a history of violence, instead of her actual position, which is that Mormons don't have a history of killing anyone who doesn't believe in their dogma. You then attacked the distorted position. I do believe that is a textbook example of a "straw man."

Actually you're making it very clear that you still don't comprehend the straw man concept. I did not distort Cerise's opinion or attribute anything to her that she did not say. I simply provided 2 links and there are examples in those links of them killing those who don't believe in their dogma.

Projecting much?

Nope, just pointing out your bullshit.

Projecting much?

Nope, just really trying ti get this idea of a straw man through to you so you can comprehend it. It seems to be your main tactic and it keeps failing.

It's pretty obvious that you were not judging Islam by the fundies but were judging the LDS church by its fundies.

I am not judging either religion by their fundies. I pointed out the official mormon stance on homosexuality and quotes from it's leaders as well as the well publicized war they have waged against their civil rights.

These things can't be attributed to the fundies if it's the official church stance. Of course there are mormons who don't agree with their official church position as I mentioned with Harry Reid.

Try getting to know a few Mormons. You might be pleasantly surprised at the people, regardless of what you think of their religion.

I've known quite a few mormons. Some were idiots some were great. Had a roomate that was mormon. Great guy with some whacked out beliefs.

Obviously everyone but you knows. Not my problem.

We all do know what you meant. That is your problem.

I can guarantee it's not the "third straw man" I've used.

I know you've usedmany many more. I meant 3rd in this thread. By attributing something to me that I did not say you hit the textbook definition for the 3rd time in this thread.

Fuck. I wore the wrong kind of shoes. If only I'd known ahead of time all the bullshit that would be strewn about the place by you...

Wow, you're REALLY trying to run from your statements now. Focus for a minute. What I asked was why you said "probably" because you obviously left some doubt there on purpose.

Quit avoiding the questions.

If a gay man hit on you why would you not take it well and why is there some possibility that you would hit him?

Your argument fails to counter the "false dilemma" argument. From this link:
Bill: "Jill and I both support prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an athiest are you Jill?"
Jill could easily say "hell no," but that doesn't make it suddenly not a false dilemma.

You keep trying but this shit doesn't fit all.

False Dilemma: "The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

"If you are not with us, you are against us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Asking Cerise if she was a white supremacist doesn't work there. It's just a clear straight forward question where any truthful answer would be acceptable.

Such as "yes", "no", "I used to be", "not officially a member but I support many of their policies", etc.

 

[paul_valaru]

for fuck's sake.

 

[Inkara1]

Quit being stupid, Spike. I've shown you proof that you don't understand what the fallacies that you accuse others of even are and yet you go on with your stupid shit. Either you're stupid or are being intentionally obtuse. You were wrong and you got called on it. Rationalize it however you want, but you were wrong and got called on it. End of story.

 

[spike]

No Inkara, I clearly illustrated that you don't understand the fallacies. I'd be glad to go over them again for you in detail if you need.

Asking Cerise if she was a white supremacist was clearly not a false dilemma. Posting links is not a straw man.

However clearly you did use several straw man attempts in this thread and got called on it.

You were wrong. End of story.

Also why do you continue avoiding answering the questions about you not taking it well if a gay man hit on you and probably not hitting him?

 

[paul_valaru]

Also why do you continue avoiding answering the questions about you not taking it well if a gay man hit on you and probably not hitting him?

hi, can i buy you a drink -no hit

*grabs my junk* -hit

 

[2minkey]

Has nothing to do with gay or straight in this. It has to do with acting an idiot on someone elses property.

oh right NOW i get it! i hadn't noticed that someone else's property thing (even after i mentioned it myself for the second time in a post above on 7/15/09 at 12:38pm).

right. the fag thing was just incidental.

it's really those pushy mormons you don't like!

(obviously you should take this post as seriously as you should have taken my previous one... NOT AT ALL dude.)

 

[spike]

hi, can i buy you a drink -no hit

*grabs my junk* -hit

Groping is not normally an effective method of hitting on someone. Although I imagine if I was single and a really hot girl tried it on me I might give her a pass. So maybe it works out sometimes.

 

[Frodo]

Quit being stupid, Spike. I've shown you proof that you don't understand what the fallacies that you accuse others of even are and yet you go on with your stupid shit. Either you're stupid or are being intentionally obtuse. You were wrong and you got called on it. Rationalize it however you want, but you were wrong and got called on it. End of story.

Next time you want to converse with Spike, might I suggest one of these?

 

[spike]

Wow Frodo, it's like you never have anything factual or meaningful to add. You're just trolling around huh?

I bet you respond well to Turtle Calls.

 

[Altron]

Quit being stupid, Spike. I've shown you proof that you don't understand what the fallacies that you accuse others of even are and yet you go on with your stupid shit. Either you're stupid or are being intentionally obtuse. You were wrong and you got called on it. Rationalize it however you want, but you were wrong and got called on it. End of story.

Spike's definitely being obtuse, since he is neither a cute, nor right.

 

[Frodo]

I bet you respond well to Turtle Calls.

You have a lot of experience calling turtles, do you?

 

[spike]

None, but I bet you sure you have a lot getting called.

 

[Inkara1]

No Inkara, I clearly illustrated that you don't understand the fallacies. I'd be glad to go over them again for you in detail if you need.

That would be stupid since you don't even understand what a straw man is. Your own link that you've posted multiple times doesn't even agree with you.

Asking Cerise if she was a white supremacist was clearly not a false dilemma.

Bullshit.

Posting links is not a straw man.

It is if you're doing so to refute a distorted version of someone else's position. That's exactly what you did.

However clearly you did use several straw man attempts in this thread and got called on it.

Since you have demonstrated time and time again you don't have a grasp of what a straw man really is, it's obvious that you accusing me of using a straw man isn't really "calling me on it" since you don't really know what you're accusing me of.

You were wrong. End of story.

It's interesting how you've almost never shown an ability to make an argument against what someone says that doesn't involve simply reusing the same words your opponent used. What's with the absence of creativity? I know that when one little kid tells another, "You stink like poop!" it's perfectly fine for the other to say, "No! YOU stink like poop!" But I'm significantly older than 5 and I assume you are too.

Also why do you continue avoiding answering the questions about you not taking it well if a gay man hit on you and probably not hitting him?

I've already made my thoughts known. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then as our friends the Russians would say, tufshitski.

 

[spike]

That would be stupid since you don't even understand what a straw man is. Your own link that you've posted multiple times doesn't even agree with you.

My link does agree with me. You clearly just don't grasp the concept. You have repeatedly tried to misrepresent my position and my words and then attack that position.

Inkara: "by saying I said I'd deck any gay man that hit on me"

See, I didn't say that at all. Yet you act as if I did and try to argue from there.

Inkara: "Judging the Muslims by their fundamentalists: bad. Judging the Mormons by their fundamentalists: good."

I didn't say that either. Yet you acted as if I did and tried to argue from there.

There's 2 attempts at a straw man that you got called on.

Bullshit.

Nope, I clearly demonstrated that asking Cerise if she is a white supremacist in no way resembles a false dilemma. If you disagree your going to have to do a little work to show the similarity. It's looking pretty hopeless tho'.

It is if you're doing so to refute a distorted version of someone else's position. That's exactly what you did.

Good, Cerise said they don't have a history of killing people that don't believe in their dogma. The links contained examples of them killing people that don't believe in their dogma.

It's interesting how you've almost never shown an ability to make an argument against what someone says that doesn't involve simply reusing the same words your opponent used.

Now you're just lying.

I make points daily supported by proof and facts. I'm sure you hate it when i use your own bullshit against you but tough.

I've already made my thoughts known.

No you haven't. You've run from the question several times and that's it.

You have provided no answer about why you wouldn't take it well if a gay man hit on you.

 

[2minkey]

for fuck's sake.

you can say that again.