Prop 8 over turned - Page 14 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Billybob · #**196** 08-06-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffyguy1981

If they are irrelevent then why did you bring them up in the first place? It is still an attack no matter how you rationalize it.

I understand your claim of displeasure you are free to feel that way. The issue you've elected to engage with is whether the response to the post was an ad hominem, it was not.

I may find statement you make an affront to my beliefs, I might not like your positions or opinions of others, I might perceive your words delivered as insult, all that is to be expected in an honest adult discourse over disagreement. But none are ad hominem unless they meet the criteria of the operative definition.

Hurt feelings and bruised egos are not the defining criteria of ad hominem!

Scruffyguy1981 · #**197** 08-06-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Of all people I would have expected you to refrain from offering a critique of alleged insults directed towards others. Have you no shame?

An ad-hominem argument attacks an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

So it's ok to reference definitions, but when it is mentioned that you yourself have done that very thing it is an issue? No one is attacking your character, illustrations have been made about comments and historical references. This whole thing is exactly what is going on in our political system. We waste vast amounts of time circling issues that are irrelevang to the subject at hand rather than adressing the topic and working towards a more complete society. If we spent half as much time working towards the betterment of our country as we do arguing about trivial nonsense we would not be in the mess we are in today. Who marries who is irrelevent. The words used to describe things are irrelevent. Definitions change, times change. We can either adapt and move forward as a whole or destroy ourselves through petty egotistical bickering.

Billybob · #**198** 08-06-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

My comment about ad hominem attacks was not intended to describe your previous comment, rather was a general observation of your debating technique. When your argument gets punched full of holes, you typically fall back to -
1. Straw man (usually something to do with liberals)
2. Ad hominem

Sorry if you interpreted my remark as being directly related to your latest post.

Well the fact being that you deliberately included in your post a previous quote that you now claim was not the intended focus of your commentary together with the complete absence of any qualifiers in you commentary disqualifying the deliberately included quote I can understand how upon reflection you're sorry:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

You just made the point that has been repeated to you in myriad ways.

Why would the state desire successful progeny? More mouths to feed, more crowding, more everything the state has to provide. Seems backwards to me, the state has compelling interest in favoring non-reproductive couples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

I specified successful progeny not liberals, successful progeny don't need the state to feed them, house them, or provide them anything. It is the unsuccessful progeny who are ideologically liberal always sucking off the teat of the nanny state, always demanding someone else do for them that which they are incapable of doing for themselves, always seeing every difference in outcome as the result of manifest unfairness.

My own personal political platform would advocate the sterilization of liberals to prevent further manifestation of that particular mental disorder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Ducking the issue again. Sort of predictable, when you're debated into a corner, and your argument looks like Swiss cheese, presto - out comes the "liberal" straw man. Of course we can't forget the ad hominem. Hard to tell really, which one is your preferred exit strategy from a losing argument, they both get so much use.

I'm happy to let the record of this discussion stand on it's own!

#**199** 08-06-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Lose the fight? Why do you think Prop 8 got kicked out on it's ear?

I'm on your side, I'm just suggesting that we don't waste time and effort arguing with idiots about language and keep our eye on the ball. The real goal is to have equal rights for everyone.

Scruffyguy1981 · #**200** 08-06-2010, 02:59 PM

At any rate, I am glad that there was finally some common sense in California. Now that they are onboard it won't be too long (hopefully) before the rest of this country catches up. On that note, I'm done following this thread, best of luck to all of you.

Billybob · #**201** 08-06-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffyguy1981

So it's ok to reference definitions, but when it is mentioned that you yourself have done that very thing it is an issue? No one is attacking your character, illustrations have been made about comments and historical references. This whole thing is exactly what is going on in our political system. We waste vast amounts of time circling issues that are irrelevang to the subject at hand rather than adressing the topic and working towards a more complete society. If we spent half as much time working towards the betterment of our country as we do arguing about trivial nonsense we would not be in the mess we are in today. Who marries who is irrelevent. The words used to describe things are irrelevent. Definitions change, times change. We can either adapt and move forward as a whole or destroy ourselves through petty egotistical bickering.

You ought to investigate the claims made before assigning them a value, the feeble claim was that insult was made when responding

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Now you two make a lovely couple, the only question is, who's pitching and who's catching.

to these same folks now crying insult and ad hominem!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I have utterly no idea how he draws conclusions like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

My guess is with a crayon....

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "gay marriage" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

davidmash · #**202** 08-06-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "gay marriage" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Where have I heard this line of reasoning before..... OH Yea.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "inter racial marriage" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "minorities in the military" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "Civil rights" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "woman's rights" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

With regard to the rest of what you've said, there are people, in fact with specific regard to "women in the military" a majority in every electoral contest, who do not agree with your vision of "a more complete society"or "the betterment of our country ", all this conflict, tug and pull may be more than you personally are capable or willing to endure but whether you like it or not it is the way the world works.

Deal with it.

Billybob · #**203** 08-06-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Where have I heard this line of reasoning before..... OH Yea.....Deal with it.

[QUOTE=davidmash;2520258]Where have I heard this line of reasoning before..... OH Yea.....

What is the purpose of decontextualizing?

The reasoning isn’t about the merits of the argument it’s about the value of the discourse!

My commentary was in direct response to the quoted statement of the poster where he lamented the quarrelsome nature of the debate and his dissatisfaction with the debate itself as taking place and was irrelevant and trivial, that better things more important things mattered. I would have thought that was easily comprehensible.

Debate and conflict is inherent to the methodology of progress in democratic societies.

What is the purpose of taking something out of context to re make some other point?

MS Fowler · #**204** 08-06-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Adolf Hitler.

AH was a late comer to the position. The others in BB's response mostly US Progressives were there first.

aklim · #**205** 08-06-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

AH was a late comer to the position. The others in BB's response mostly US Progressives were there first.

This?

MS Fowler · #**206** 08-06-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

This?

Yes.

As much as modern liberals/ progressives like to point the accusing finger at conservatives and cry, " Beware, there is fascism in your genes", they tend to ignore the other three fingers pointing back at them.

Fascism is much more a product of the political left than the right, historically speaking. That does NOT mean that all modern progressives or Liberals are fascists. But fascism is a natural by-product when we ignore the Constitutional restrictions on the proper role of government whether from the right or the left.
Geo. Bush's Compassionate Conservatism had some fascistic tendencies, but he was hardly what anyone would call a Conservative.
Also Fascism in America will not look like Italian Fascism or German fascism; we are a different people, and our version will look much kinder and gentler.

aklim · #**207** 08-06-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Geo. Bush's Compassionate Conservatism had some fascistic tendencies, but he was hardly what anyone would call a Conservative.

He was and still is a politician. That means he is conservative if it suits him, liberal if it doesn't. As long as he gets the correct number of votes, he will be whatever you want him to be.

MS Fowler · #**208** 08-06-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

He was and still is a politician. That means he is conservative if it suits him, liberal if it doesn't. As long as he gets the correct number of votes, he will be whatever you want him to be.

And THAT is exactly what i have against most politicians today.

I want principled people who can articulate a position and then make their decision based on that basic philosophy.
Its one of the reason I actually like Hillary--I disagree with her, but I KNOW where she will stand on almost any issue. Same, in a grudging way for the President. he is doctrinaire, and will always take a radical position.

Most of the repubs i see, are not concerned with overall philosophy, and I see that as a fault. As it says in the Bible, ( or nearly so) I would rather you were hot or cold, but instead you are lukewarm ( tepid) and I will spite you out of my mouth.

aklim · #**209** 08-06-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And THAT is exactly what i have against most politicians today.

I want principled people who can articulate a position and then make their decision based on that basic philosophy.
Its one of the reason I actually like Hillary--I disagree with her, but I KNOW where she will stand on almost any issue. Same, in a grudging way for the President. he is doctrinaire, and will always take a radical position.

Most of the repubs i see, are not concerned with overall philosophy, and I see that as a fault. As it says in the Bible, ( or nearly so) I would rather you were hot or cold, but instead you are lukewarm ( tepid) and I will spite you out of my mouth.

Reps, Dems, Independent. All the same. It is a job. The election is like a job interview where you spin fantastic tales of what you will do when elected. Problem is that is the best it can be since it is run by people.

MS Fowler · #**210** 08-06-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Reps, Dems, Independent. All the same. It is a job. The election is like a job interview where you spin fantastic tales of what you will do when elected. Problem is that is the best it can be since it is run by people.

I disagree. It did not used to be this way. With the rise of polling, politicians have lost all sense of principle and will blow with the wind. IMO, that makes them followers; not leaders.