Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[NotreDame]

Wow. Chill, man. People make assumptions about each other all the time on here. It's not an infraction of the rules in any way, so you would be doing nothing but wasting the Moderators' time if you reported me for that.

My point still stands, by the way, and the fact that you got so offended by what I said just shows that it must be true.

No I am not going to "chill." "Chill" is what happens to food products, like ice cream and soda.

Second, it is nothing less than a lack of philosophical sophistication to attempt to refute a position by alleging bias. What exacerbates this is when people presume to know something about a complete stranger, and you and I are complete strangers.

Your point does not stand, other than to be an irrelevant and futile remark which does not show or demonstrate my analysis as false, wrong, incomplete, or incorrect.

Finally, I got "offended" because A.) you are very wrong B.) it was a false allegation, and an allegation based on no knowledge of me, as we are complete stranges C.) such an allegation has no relevance to this dialogue, and therefore constitutes as a complete illogical, unreasonable, and irrational reply to what I said.

Yeah, such reasoning usually does annoy me as it should most people seeking to find justice, fairness, equality, or the rightness, wrongness, if any, in some proposition.

 

[NotreDame]

If you believe that being is fundamentally wrong, a sin against God, then how can you remain impartial in this case?

What does my impartiality have anything to do with the correctness of my position? Absolutely freaking nothing! My position is right, wrong, true, false, not based on my biases, if any, but the strength of the logic inherent in the reasoning used in the argument, the strength of the evidence used in support of the argument, and how tenuous a link exists between the evidence and the argument.

So far, you have said absolutely nothing logical, germane, relevant, or reasonable to refute a thing I have said in regards to this lawsuit or this young woman's claim. In logical reasoning, your replies are considered pseudoreasoning, specifically, the logical reasoning fallacy of interjecting a red herring.

 

[a_nony_mous]

No I am not going to "chill." "Chill" is what happens to food products, like ice cream and soda.

It's called slang. Ever heard of it? Or are you above using that sort of language? *rolls eyes* Stop with the arrogant attitude already and at least try to treat me like an equal. I am, after all, a human being just like you are.

Second, it is nothing less than a lack of philosophical sophistication to attempt to refute a position by alleging bias. What exacerbates this is when people presume to know something about a complete stranger, and you and I are complete strangers.

You just admitted that you hold a bias against gay people, since you think that they're sinning by being gay. The fact that your opinion of gay people isn't completely impartial just shows that you're biased against them.

Finally, I got "offended" because A.) you are very wrong B.) it was a false allegation, and an allegation based on no knowledge of me, as we are complete stranges C.) such an allegation has no relevance to this dialogue, and therefore constitutes as a complete illogical, unreasonable, and irrational reply to what I said.

Yeah, such reasoning usually does annoy me as it should most people seeking to find justice, fairness, equality, or the rightness, wrongness, if any, in some proposition.

Can you re-state that in layman's terms, please? Maybe this means that I'm not as smart as you are, but I do have some trouble understanding complex words, like the ones you used above. (And no, this does not mean that you can--or should--look down on me.)

 

[NotreDame]

So you're saying that personal bias can't affect the opinions someone holds? You think that if someone is biased against Chinese people, they won't be more likely than anyone else to hold anti-Chinese opinions? Sorry, but that's not the way logic works at all. Try again.

Actually, based on the content of your remarks, which are devoid of logical reasoning, you are in no position to educate me as to how logic works. Furthermore, what I specifically said was people can objectively analyze a situation in spite of their biases and you have said nothing to refute such a contention. I already provided an example where I can and have provided an objective analysis in spite of my belief same sex acts are sinful and I will not provide another example of objective analysis in spite of contrary beliefs.

Justice Antonin Scalia is a devout Catholic, and believes abortions are wrong, specifically they are sinful. However, Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated, over and over again to the pro-life crowd, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not protect the fetus because under this provision in the U.S. Constitution, a fetus is not a "person." Justice Scalia has consistently refused to adopt the view abortion is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. His logic would likewise extend to the due process clause.

This is but another example where someone professing to have a particular belief can nevertheless objectively analyze an issue in which the said belief may be involved.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Actually, based on the content of your remarks, which are devoid of logical reasoning, you are in no position to educate me as to how logic works. Furthermore, what I specifically said was people can objectively analyze a situation in spite of their biases and you have said nothing to refute such a contention. I already provided an example where I can and have provided an objective analysis in spite of my belief same sex acts are sinful and I will not provide another example of objective analysis in spite of contrary beliefs.

Stop it with the arrogance already. Aren't Christians supposed to be humble? Try showing some humility for once.

Justice Antonin Scalia is a devout Catholic, and believes abortions are wrong, specifically they are sinful. However, Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated, over and over again to the pro-life crowd, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not protect the fetus because under this provision in the U.S. Constitution, a fetus is not a "person." Justice Scalia has consistently refused to adopt the view abortion is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. His logic would likewise extend to the due process clause.

That doesn't mean that he's not biased against women who want to get abortions. I'm sure that, if someone he loved wanted to get an abortion, he'd try to convince her not to.

This is but another example where someone professing to have a particular belief can nevertheless objectively analyze an issue in which the said belief may be involved.

So, if you're so able to objectively analyze this issue, then why are you so unwilling to even consider the possibility that the school was wrong in canceling the prom?

 

[NotreDame]

Stop it with the arrogance already. Aren't Christians supposed to be humble? Try showing some humility for once.

I am not being arrogant. I am correcting the reasoning of an argument and critiquing it. The two are not the same.

That doesn't mean that he's not biased against women who want to get abortions.

This has absolutely nothing to do with his positions on the U.S. Constitution, a salient point you continue to ignore to the detriment of your own argument.

So, if you're so able to objectively analyze this issue, then why are you so unwilling to even consider the possibility that the school was wrong in canceling the prom?

Because of my knowledge of the law in this area. Furthermore, my remarks were modified after a brief exchange with Lighthorseman to illuminate the fact there are some unknown factors here which render keep me from assuredly concluding she cannot win.

It's called slang. Ever heard of it?

Yeah...I heard it a lot in grade school and middle school.

You just admitted that you hold a bias against gay people, since you think that they're sinning by being gay. The fact that your opinion of gay people isn't completely impartial just shows that you're biased against them.

Nope...it does not show my legal analysis or opinion is wrong, incorrect, or a result of bias as opposed to being based solidly on and consistent with the law in this area. Having a bias does not lead to the conclusion the person venturing an opinion has given a wrong, incorrect, or false opinion.

Can you re-state that in layman's terms, please? Maybe this means that I'm not as smart as you are, but I do have some trouble understanding complex words, like the ones you used above. (And no, this does not mean that you can--or should--look down on me.)

Ya know...I am going to use your logic against you. You are biased against people such as myself. Your prior exchanges, which I have read, with other people in this thread is prima facie evidence you have a bias. Consequently, your entire analysis of me is false based on your bias. In fact, all of your remarks to other people in this thread where you contested their position is immediately, automatically, unequivocally, and absolutely rendered false because of your bias.

There is no point in you and I even addressing each other any further because your allegations of me having a bias is a result of a pre-existing bias you already possessed, thereby tainting your analysis of me, and making it flawed, false, and untrue.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

No, you don't think for yourself. If you did, then you would actually be willing to think through the issue of homosexuality, looking at all possible angles of it, before developing an opinion on it, and you would be completely okay with it if your opinion ended up differing from what the Bible says.

Nice try, but you're just like every other Christian out there: blinded by the Bible.

You're still doing it!!!

How do you know I haven't already done this...thinking through the issue of homosexuality and all its angles? BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU, you assume that I must not do these things on my own.

But no, I wouldn't be okay with it if my opinion suddenly changed from what the bible says. I'm a Christian, in case you've forgotten or missed that. As a Christian, I believe the bible to be the word of God. Therefore, if I come up with a conclusion that goes against what the bible says, I'm going against my God. I realize you disagree with this position so rationalizing it to you would be a massive waste of my time.

You call it blinded, I call it enlightened. We will never see eye to eye on the issue, but I certainly would appreciate it if you would stop acting like you actually know me.

 

[a_nony_mous]

NotreDame, until you are able to talk to me as an equal, and until you stop using language which I've already told you that I can't understand, I see no reason why I should pay any attention to your posts. Welcome to my Ignore List.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Let me see if I get this straight, pardon the pun.

"My dislike of gay people has nothing to do with this case, which involves gay rights."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't, you're just biased."
"No, I'm not. You're biased against the girl because she's a lesbian."
"That has nothing to do with this case. You're being glib, Anonemo, you're just being glib."

 

[a_nony_mous]

You're still doing it!!!

How do you know I haven't already done this...thinking through the issue of homosexuality and all its angles? BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU, you assume that I must not do these things on my own.

But no, I wouldn't be okay with it if my opinion suddenly changed from what the bible says. I'm a Christian, in case you've forgotten or missed that. As a Christian, I believe the bible to be the word of God. Therefore, if I come up with a conclusion that goes against what the bible says, I'm going against my God. I realize you disagree with this position so rationalizing it to you would be a massive waste of my time.

You call it blinded, I call it enlightened. We will never see eye to eye on the issue, but I certainly would appreciate it if you would stop acting like you actually know me.

If you have thought this issue through completely, then why are you so willing to think that homosexuality is a bad thing, even though it harms no one? Like I said, you're blinded by the Bible. It's almost like you're a slave to that book. No matter how innocent something is, if the Bible says it's wrong, you have no choice but to agree with it. I'm sure that if the Bible said that eating cake was wrong, you'd agree with that, even though there's nothing inherently wrong about eating cake. Same thing with homosexuality: there's nothing inherently wrong with it, yet you're determined to think it's wrong no matter what anyone else says.

 

[NotreDame]

NotreDame, until you are able to talk to me as an equal, and until you stop using language which I've already told you that I can't understand, I see no reason why I should pay any attention to your posts. Welcome to my Ignore List.

Thank you!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

NotreDame, until you are able to talk to me as an equal, and until you stop using language which I've already told you that I can't understand, I see no reason why I should pay any attention to your posts. Welcome to my Ignore List.

Yeah, that's right. Way to show him...ignore him because he uses big words!!

 

[AirPo]

Well, she did ask nicely.

 

[NotreDame]

Let me see if I get this straight, pardon the pun.

"My dislike of gay people has nothing to do with this case, which involves gay rights."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't, you're just biased."
"No, I'm not. You're biased against the girl because she's a lesbian."
"That has nothing to do with this case. You're being glib, Anonemo, you're just being glib."

A bias does not logically show, demonstrate, or prove a position to be false, untrue, or incorrect. Neither does a bias refute an argument.

In logical reasoning, and every logical reasoning book I have read, your approach to addressing my argument would be rendered fallacious reasoning, specifically committing a logical reasoning fallacy known as the "red herring" or what is also called a "genetic fallacy." Your defense of logical reasoning fallacies is rather puzzling.

So, pray tell how a bias, any bias, would demonstrate my legal analysis false, wrong, or incorrect?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If you have thought this issue through completely, then why are you so willing to think that homosexuality is a bad thing, even though it harms no one? Like I said, you're blinded by the Bible. It's almost like you're a slave to that book. No matter how innocent something is, if the Bible says it's wrong, you have no choice but to agree with it. I'm sure that if the Bible said that eating cake was wrong, you'd agree with that, even though there's nothing inherently wrong about eating cake.

Oh my goodness, I can't explain it much clearer to you. I believe that sex was intended for marriage. I believe that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, anything outside of that goes against God's word. All sin harms God. God hates all sin.

Why are YOU so unwilling to accept my belief and my opinion? Why do you keep trying to make me believe that something that goes against what my God says is really okay, just because YOU think it's okay? You've called me hateful, you've called me blinded, all because you disagree with me. What, exactly, have I done to you in this thread? Where have I disrespected you that you feel you have the right to call me names and mock my belief?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Wow, great job on acting Christ-like, and great job on being a good Administrator. I'm sure that both Christ and the person who runs this site would be very proud of the way you just made fun of me. (Note the sarcasm.)

It's kinda hard to ignore your sarcasm most of the time.

Instead of ignoring him, why don't you bust out a dictionary and learn what the words mean? Have a rational civil conversation with him and learn something!

 

[a_nony_mous]

Oh my goodness, I can't explain it much clearer to you. I believe that sex was intended for marriage. I believe that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, anything outside of that goes against God's word. All sin harms God. God hates all sin.

Why are YOU so unwilling to accept my belief and my opinion? Why do you keep trying to make me believe that something that goes against what my God says is really okay, just because YOU think it's okay? You've called me hateful, you've called me blinded, all because you disagree with me. What, exactly, have I done to you in this thread? Where have I disrespected you that you feel you have the right to call me names and mock my belief?

You just made fun of the fact that I have a small vocabulary. That's pretty darned disrespectful. Stop acting like you're so innocent here when you just made fun of me.

And why do you believe that sex is intended for marriage and that marriage is to be between a man and a woman? Oh yes, that's right: because the Bible says so. There's no other reason at all why you believe those things. I'm sure that if the Bible told you to walk off a cliff, you'd do that, too.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, she did ask nicely.

not to nitpick, but she "asked" at 2:32pm. ND responded about ten minutes after she made her request. She responded to that post at 2:44 with her statement that she was going to ignore him.

I've often found that people who use a large vocabulary when they talk find it hard to use smaller words to get their point across. I'm a writer by nature and I tend to use larger words because most of my writing is at a college level. That is reflected here and if someone asked me to use smaller words, it would be a challenge and one that I couldn't rectify in 12 minutes.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Preacher's Wife and Anon calm down. Now. Resorting to this level makes us all look like bloody fools.

 

[a_nony_mous]

It's kinda hard to ignore your sarcasm most of the time.

Instead of ignoring him, why don't you bust out a dictionary and learn what the words mean? Have a rational civil conversation with him and learn something!

Instead of criticizing my small vocabulary, why don't you go open your mind a bit and read some pro-gay marriage articles? Here are a few for you to start with:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
Homosexuality: Not a Sin...Not a Sickness
Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

If you read those articles, I'll broaden my vocabulary. Do we have a deal?