1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#152 Feb 29 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#153 Feb 29 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
So no one can provide a primary source which proves some other alternative reason for why we created those marriage laws?

Just checking.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Feb 29 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Feb 29 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#156 Feb 29 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
So... Still no primary source? So you must be wrong and I must be right! Hurray!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Feb 29 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This would cut more if no one had read the dozen-plus threads where this was already hashed out.

I've no doubt that you'll just say none of that ever counted, etc. I wish you well in that because I've no interest in making it thirteen-plus. Whatever gets you though the day is fine by me Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Feb 29 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Its all good...its his opinion. Smiley: lol
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#159 Mar 01 2012 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Were we supposed to forget that he was the one asked for that source with the page change?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#160 Mar 01 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so? Ha, ha, you're cute. My only argument is that these laws weren't passed for the reasons you suggested, and the lack of primary sources stating contrary is proof enough for me. Because all my argument is doing is invalidating your claim, not saying WHY the laws were passed.

If I cared about talking to you more, I might be willing. But I know you'd just ignore them, like in every other thread.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#161 Mar 02 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Mar 03 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Soooo... if Santorum is elected, he wants to nullify 131,000 legal and binding marriages on the basis that Federal law trumps states' rights in defining marriage.

What a true conservative he is.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#163 Mar 03 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I wonder what other states rights he's willing to overturn...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#164 Mar 03 2012 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.


You can try and attack me all you want, but it's actually basic logic. You are committing two well-known logical fallacy. Demanding an alternate argument is not a valid form of argument. I'm in no way required to offer you an explanation, because whether or not I have a correct explanation in no way validates your own.

It's, frankly, pathetic that you have so much difficulty admitting that you are doing this. You're trying to deflect the critique of your own argument onto me, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Give me reason to accept your premises, and I might. As it stands, you have yet to give me ANY reason to do so, but expect me to use an argument from final consequence (another logical fallacy) to do so.

Whether or not I can prove a different theory quite literally makes no difference with regards to whether yours is right. This also happens to be the reason why even the most-trusted scientific beliefs are still considered theories--just because we don't have a difference answer doesn't mean our own is right. When we don't have enough proof to suspect accuracy, we consider it a hypothesis.

You, gbaji, have made a hypothesis. And you have yet to give us any proof for it. I see absolutely no reason to accept your argument.

It's sad, gbaji. It's really, really sad. Maybe if you'd stop foaming at the mouth and actually take the time to make a reasonable defense, based off of primary information we have reason to trust, then it would actually be possible to engage in discourse with you. As it stands, you offer no more intellectual stimulation than cleverbot does.

[EDIT]

I know this as the monkey-in-the-attic fallacy, but that's not its real name. I just remember it that way because its how I learned it.

You are sitting on the couch when you hear a noise upstairs. Your friend says its a monkey in the attic. You disagree, and he demands a different explanation (but you don't have one), leading him to jubilantly declare he's right.

That's what you have done, gbaji. You've told us there's a monkey in the attic, and then handed us an opinion piece as evidence for it.

Pardon me if I don't believe you.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 2:05pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#165 Mar 03 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not apply the same requirement to yourself? Provide a primary source which explains why we created our marriage laws and use that source to prove that I'm wrong.

I'll ask again: Can you provide a primary source which can determine without question the purpose for which our marriage laws were created? And I'm not talking about *what* they do, but *why* they do it. Can you do this? If not, then why are you demanding that I do.



I'll play your stupid little game on one condition. Instead of constantly referring to them as "marriage laws", name a specific code that you'd like to debate. By article number, not friendly name.

And just to get off to a running start, let's use DOMA as an example.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?r104:@OR+(+@1(H.R.+3396)++@1(H.+R.+3396)++)

Every single reference on that page is a primary source, but since you're clearly incapable of finding this **** on your own, let's present the following

Mr. President, during my years in the Senate I have been privileged on many occasions to work with a substantial number of ministers whose Washington churches today are referred to as `African-American.'

These fine ministers have almost unanimously supported efforts by myself and Joe Gibbs and others to restore school prayer to the Nation's classrooms. They are, in the main, opposed to abortion. In fact, I do not recall even one of these ministers ever describing himself or herself as `pro-choice.' But that perhaps is neither here nor there in terms of what I am here this evening to speak about.

The day before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, I ran into one of these fine ministers over in the Russell Building. His church is Baptist. He has a booming, cheerful voice. And when I heard that voice, I knew who it was. He was saying, `Are you going home tomorrow?' And I told him I thought I was since the Senate probably would recess for the month of August.

I asked him, Mr. President, if he had a message for the folks back home. And he said, `I sure do. Tell them that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve.'

Some may chuckle at this good-natured minister's humor. But he meant exactly what he was saying. In fact, it was a sort of sermonette. The truth is, he was hitting the nail on the head, if you want to use that cliche, or telling it like it is. However one may choose to describe this minister's getting down to the nitty-gritty, it was no mere cliche, Mr. President. There could not have been, as a matter of fact, a better way to begin this debate in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is H.R. 3396 . The formal debate will begin tomorrow morning in this Chamber, the U.S. Senate.

Now then, let there be no mistake about it, this bill in no way, to any degree, is the kind of legislation which homosexual and **** leaders have disdainfully described as a, to use their words, `hate-driven bill.'

In fact, it is precisely the critics of H.R. 3396 who are demanding that homosexuality be considered as just another lifestyle--these are the people who seek to force their agenda upon the vast majority of Americans who reject the homosexual lifestyle.

Indeed, Mr. President, the pending bill--the Defense of Marriage Act--will safeguard the sacred institutions of marriage and the family from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process.

Isn't it disheartening, Mr. President, that Congress must clarify the traditional definition of marriage? But inch by inch, little by little, the homosexual lobby has chipped away at the moral stamina of some of America's courts and some legislators, in order to create the shaky ground that exists today that prompts this legislation being the subject of debate tomorrow morning in the U.S. Senate.

Just think, the prospect of a sovereign State's being compelled to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in another State is incredibly stark. If Hawaii's supreme court legalizes same-sex marriages in Hawaii, does the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution compel the other 49 States to recognize the new marriage law within their jurisdictions? I say no.

Such a suggestion, Mr. President, is a **** interpretation of the Constitution; and this is one of so many times that I have wished the late, great Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., were here to cut it down to size. Homosexuals and lesbians boast that they are close to realizing their goal--legitimizing their behavior.

Mr. President, Bill Bennett has championed the cause of preserving America's culture; he contends that we are already reaping the consequences of the devaluation of marriage. And he warns that `it is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone and the arch of civilization.'

Bill Bennett is everlastingly right, and I believe the American people in the majority understand that the Defense of Marriage Act is vitally important. It will establish a simple, clear Federal definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, and it will exempt sovereign States from being compelled by a half-baked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages wrongfully legalized in another State.

If the Senate, tomorrow, makes the mistake of approving the Employment Nondiscrimination Act proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, it will pave the way for liberal judges to threaten the business policies of countless American employers, and, in the long run, put in question the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The homosexual lobby knows this and that is why there is such a clamor favoring adoption of the Kennedy bill.

Mr. President, at the heart of this debate is the moral and spiritual survival of this Nation. Alexis de Tocqueville said a century and a half ago that America had grown great because America was good. Mr. de Tocqueville also warned that if America made the mistake of ceasing to be good, America would cease to be great.

So, we must confront the question posed long ago: `Quo Vadis, America?'

The Senate is about to answer that question. We will decide whither goeth America. It is solely up to us.


Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage. No, this law was, is, and continues to be absolutely and unequivocally about defending America "from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process."

In short, you're a **** idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#166 Mar 03 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Mar 03 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"


There's no more accurate source than a speaker on the floor of the senate at the time the legislation is created. Offering to do so and actually doing so are different things.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#168 Mar 03 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Get ready for this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Mar 03 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.

My second favorite part is where he claims that most people only marry because they were forced to.

My third favorite part is where Brown calls him out for how stupid the last part was.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#170 Mar 03 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Hasn't gbaji also mentioned that one reason he's against **** marriage is that all those extra marriages would result in him paying higher taxes to fund all those magical unicorn benefits? But then, what if all those **** people did what he, Alma and others say they should do - marry someone of the opposite sex. Wouldn't that result in the same amount of extra marriages, making his taxes higher still?
#171Almalieque, Posted: Mar 03 2012 at 11:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not supporting his claim, but that's pretty much what politics do. At least that's what I've noticed with my limited experience. Politicians do and say things to make the people think that they are supporting cause x, but it's really for a completely different cause.
#172 Mar 04 2012 at 12:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"


Not supporting his claim, but that's pretty much what politics do. At least that's what I've noticed with my limited experience. Politicians do and say things to make the people think that they are supporting cause x, but it's really for a completely different cause.

Yes, gbaji would make a perfect Generic Republican Candidate. It's been brought up before.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#173Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 2:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This belief that Republicans and Democrats BEHAVE differently is false. They both have their own different beliefs, but when placed in office, they behave the same way.
#174 Mar 04 2012 at 2:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
A president can only act according to the support he can hope to win. Frankly, there isn't a huge difference between Bush and Obama. There are certainly differences, and they are certainly differences I care about, but Republicans who think that Bush had a good economic plan, but bash Obama's, are just idiots.

But Bush and Clinton were definitely very different presidents.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#175 Mar 04 2012 at 2:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
A president can only act according to the support he can hope to win. Frankly, there isn't a huge difference between Bush and Obama. There are certainly differences, and they are certainly differences I care about, but Republicans who think that Bush had a good economic plan, but bash Obama's, are just idiots.

But Bush and Clinton were definitely very different presidents.


I don't even know what to say to this.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#176 Mar 04 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
I was more or less just complaining about the fact that we keep getting forced into moderate presidents because our system is so polarized.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#177Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't blame the system. I blame stupid people who vote for dumb things and are willing to vote for a less than stellar candidate of party x, to avoid candidate from party y from winning, as opposed to simply not voting or voting for a 3rd party candidate.
#178 Mar 04 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
You think simply not voting is better? Yeah, no. This is a democracy, and it only works of people vote. Our biggest issue, imo, is that so many people DON'T vote. As much as I dislike the notion of voting according to party lines, I hate the idea of refraining from voting even more.

At the very least, do a write-in if you really can't bring yourself to support any of the candidates you know.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#179 Mar 04 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
I vote for myself every year, last year I had 5 votes (or so my facebook poll told me). I am going for 10 in the next election.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#180Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 3:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, voting for the lesser of two evils creates and supports the very polarized system that you despise. People know that as a Republican, no matter how much you suck as a candidate, Republicans will vote for Republicans in the next election. The same with Dems in the last election.
#181 Mar 04 2012 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nope, voting for the lesser of two evils creates and supports the very polarized system that you despise. People know that as a Republican, no matter how much you suck as a candidate, Republicans will vote for Republicans in the next election. The same with Dems in the last election.

Doing this completely eliminates the probability of a third party member from ever winning.


Or you could, you know, vote for that third candidate. There's been at least one on the ballot for years now. **** idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#182 Mar 04 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Candidates don't need 50%+ of the population, they need a plurality of the voters. The only thing not voting does is make you irrelevant to the candidates.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Mar 04 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
He may as well not vote then since he's irrelevant to everyone else.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#184 Mar 04 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
He may as well not vote then since he's irrelevant to everyone else.


Hell, he's pretty much irrelevant to himself at this point.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#185Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh... thanks for proving my point?
#186Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 9:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway. There's a reason why politics focus in some areas more than others.
#187 Mar 04 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#188Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 11:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: rolleyes
#189 Mar 04 2012 at 11:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
#190 Mar 05 2012 at 1:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
What lolgaxe said.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#191 Mar 05 2012 at 3:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Candidates don't need 50%+ of the population, they need a plurality of the voters. The only thing not voting does is make you irrelevant to the candidates.


Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway. There's a reason why politics focus in some areas more than others.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 5:54am by Almalieque
I know, right? Scott Brown sure wasted his time running against Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. A republican would never win a Mass. Senate seat. And when was the last time NJ had a conservative governor? Good point, Alma.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#192Almalieque, Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 11:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Given that you didn't contradict my point, I would say that it is. I'm not even a political junkie and I know this much. At this point, I don't think you're arguing just to counter me, but you are actually confusedSmiley: lol
#193 Mar 05 2012 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Given that you didn't contradict my point, I would say that it is. I'm not even a political junkie and I know this much. At this point, I don't think you're arguing just to counter me, but you are actually confusedSmiley: lol


Words: I don't think you know what they mean.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#194Almalieque, Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 12:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Logic and understanding, lack much you do.
#195 Mar 05 2012 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway.

I don't agree with this but it's stupid on its face anyway. "Because I have the potential for irrelevance, I'll guarantee my irrelevance!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Mar 05 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.


You can try and attack me all you want, but it's actually basic logic.


My position is. The argument opposing me is fallacious though.

Read what you wrote above. Want to know why it's ironic? Because I was responding to someone who demanded that I provide a primary source for my argument while refusing to do so for their own. Get it yet?

I'm not demanding that anyone provide a primary source. I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that primary sources in law are mostly useless in determining *why* a law was passed (or why it needed to be passed, or why the people agreed to allow it be be passed, etc). Let's examine the actual logic here and see if it stands up:

Given: For your position to be proven, you must provide a primary source. 
 
Fact: You refuse to provide a primary source. 
 
Conclusion: Your position is unproven. 


I do not accept the given in the argument. I believe that one can argue their position in absence of a primary source as demanded in this thread. Someone else insisted that I must provide a primary source, or I'm wrong. I responded by saying that if they believe that, then if they can't provide a primary source supporting their position, then they are wrong.


My logic is to test the given in the logic above:

 
Given: For an assumption to be valid, it must be true in all relevant cases 
 
Fact: The person arguing a given assumption cannot support his own argument with said assumption 
 
Fact: The person arguing that assumption still insists that his position is correct 
 
Conclusion: The person's argument isn't really based on the given assumption at all. 



That's how logic is done. If you demand a certain condition for something to be true, you must be willing and able to apply that same condition to your own argument. If you are not, then the demand itself is false. In this case, the insistence that only by providing a primary source can an argument be valid is clearly not itself valid. Thus, it's not necessary.




Quote:
I know this as the monkey-in-the-attic fallacy, but that's not its real name. I just remember it that way because its how I learned it.

You are sitting on the couch when you hear a noise upstairs. Your friend says its a monkey in the attic. You disagree, and he demands a different explanation (but you don't have one), leading him to jubilantly declare he's right.

That's what you have done, gbaji. You've told us there's a monkey in the attic, and then handed us an opinion piece as evidence for it.



Um... Ok. But you're still misapplying the logic (or unfairly applying it). You're talking about proof, not "most likely explanation". You're correct that the fallacy does not prove that the noise was made by a monkey. But the disagreement also does not prove that it's not a monkey. It's just as fallacious for me to insist that I've proven him wrong by doing this.


Where your example fails is that I have done more than just declare that it's a monkey. I've found other people who say that the noise made is consistent with that made by a monkey. I've shown a historical pattern of monkeys being up in the attic. I've shown how the attic is a good environment where a monkey might want to hang out. I've done everything short of actually showing you a monkey to support the theory that the noise most likely was made by a monkey. If all you do in response is say "I disagree, and since you can't prove it's a monkey, you must be wrong", then while neither position is proven or disproved, mine is "strong", and yours is "weak".


To follow the analogy, if we assume that *something* must have made the noise, and if we further assume that there is some reason why me must take some action based on what we think the noise is, then the guy who says "I think it's a monkey, so we should do X", is at least proposing an idea and a course of action. The guy who can't tell you what the noise is and refuses to guess, but just sits there saying "I can't say what it is, but I don't think it's a monkey" isn't helping matters at all.

And in the real world, the absence of a countering proposal, the one put on the table does win. Just try going into a business meeting sometime and insisting that the other guys idea is wrong, but refusing to provide an alternative yourself. You'll be laughed out of the room. Or, if you prefer a more common example, you're at Disneyland, and someone proposes that you all ride on the Matterhorn, but you insist that's a bad rid, but when asked for an alternative to consider, refuse to do so. Know what's going to happen? You're going to ride the Matterhorn. Not because it's been proven to be the best ride at that moment, but because no one came up with a better alternative.


Failure to provide a counter argument really does mean you lose. I know you're trying hard to pretend that's not the case, but it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Mar 05 2012 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Mar 05 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Mar 05 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.

He's talking about your response to court verdicts which quite clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right, but which you somehow interpret to say that marriage is not a fundamental right.

At least try to understand what people are actually saying before responding. It might help you out.
#200 Mar 05 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.

He's talking about your response to court verdicts which quite clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right, but which you somehow interpret to say that marriage is not a fundamental right.


Sigh... Which is itself a misunderstanding of the concept of a right. You have a right to health care. Meaning that the government cannot pass a law making it illegal for you to obtain it, or for someone to provide it. You do *not* have a right to Medicare. That is a benefit the government has created.

The confusion occurs because people use the same word "marriage" to refer to multiple things. This is why I go out of my way to make it abundantly clear that I'm speaking of the state issued benefits gained when one is granted a marriage license. And just in case you're also confused, I mean state as in "government in general", not just state versus federal. Cause people seem to go out of their way to find ways to misinterpret what I say unless I beat them over the head with it.


Quote:
At least try to understand what people are actually saying before responding. It might help you out.



I've never made bones about me disagreeing with any statement by anyone (including judges) who frame government granted benefits in the form of a "right". To the degree to which any judge has written something suggesting that anyone has a right to those benefits, I believe that judge is incorrect. They're not infallible, you know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Mar 05 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.



Nice try dumb @#%^. I said name some legislation. You want to argue that a specific code was instated for a specific reason, name the specific code and we'll find out for sure.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 5:19pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Aethien, ElneClare, Jophiel, Kaolian, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (64)