5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around

Post Reply New Topic

From now on we should be careful not to call racists racists. After all, if they base their racism on Genesis 9:24-27, Acts 17:26 or Nehemiah 13:23-27, they are not really racist.

From now on we should also be careful not to call sexists sexists. After all, if they base their sexism on Ephesians 5:22 or 1 Timothy 2:12, they are not really sexist.

Are there any other otherwise meaningful words that we should deprive of meaning, so we do not offend the "rational" religious discriminators?

It's the cherry picking that highlights the bigotry. Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery if the cause was not sexual immorality. So by biblical standards we have a marriage problem that is likely more widespread than the prospect of homosexual marriage. A biblically reasoned "defense of marriage" would also go after no-fault divorce and remarriage law at the same time.

As it stands it looks like they are singling out a minority. It's killing them with the younger generation.

I took this debate ('are there rational arguments gay marriage') as a google challenge.

Google pretty much defaulted that search to 'secular reasons against gay marriage' so perhaps Bodyles is right and arguments based on religion are inherently irrational because religion is not intended to be a rational framework. If it were, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it.

Google provided me 2 rational reasons.

1)It is not a psychologicaly healthy environment for children.
Counter arguments are A)that marriage does not inherently lead to children, especially marriage that makes biological procreation between just the married couple impossible [but then it leads to arguments against adoption] and B)that studies done on children raised by same sex couples show no statistical trend towards psychological problems [that they can have psychological problems but not at a greater proportion than children in dual sex or single parent homes].

However, the fact that this argument can be debunked doesn't make it irrational. Concern over children is perfectly rational.

2)It is harmful to gay people because it puts the marriage under control of the government, leading to legal complications upon divorce. The couple can no longer merely break up but must go through the expensive legal quagmire of divorce court.
This one had been debunked by gay people themselves who say the perks of legality outweigh the complications of potential divorce.

A debunkable argument but not irrational.

For the record, I am in favor of gay marriage. But the challenge was to find rational arguments against it.

Yes, I was right, and I'm right about this too:

...you failed that challenge.

Arguing that something which has been objectively proven to be false is true is in fact an irrartional argument.
Otherwise, nearly any provably false argument could be made for or against anything & be called rational, and that's simply not the case.
e.x. Gay people shouldn't be allowed to legally marry because they'll have sex with raccoons if they're married.
Rational? No, because it's provably false.

Just because those arguments from Google seem more reasonable on the surface doesn't, in the light of their proven falsehood, make them any less irrational than my example.

Because both of those arguments have been proven to be factually false, arguing that they're true is irrational and so they're irrational arguments.
They may have been considered rational befor they were proven to be false, but now because asserting that they're true would be irrational, they are in fact irrational.

Try again.

^ i think they're out of tries.

Except that neither point has objectively been proven false. I gave counter arguments (counter arguments that I have myself used in favor of gay marriage since I do favor it) but neither point has been objectively proven false.

I am a liberal and in favor of gay marriage. However, I think that devil's advocate arguemnts are a useful tool for seeing multiple aspects of a dispute rather than simply calling those who disagree irrational.

This touches on a lot of the subjects that the (fake?) conservatives raise in a lot of these threads.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPqXIfDYlZg[/youtube]

Last edited by Stannis on 25 Apr 2014, 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

What?

1)It is not a psychologicaly healthy environment for children.
B)that studies done on children raised by same sex couples show no statistical trend towards psychological problems
That PROVES #1 false as much as ANYTHING can be proven false, scentifically speaking.

2)It is harmful to gay people because it puts the marriage under control of the government, leading to legal complications upon divorce.
- gay people themselves who say the perks of legality outweigh the complications of potential divorce.
That, again, PROVES #2 to be false as much as it possibly could be.

Either that or you could just as easily say that
2)It is harmful to straight people because it puts the marriage under control of the government, leading to legal complications upon divorce.
and therefore we need to end this government run institution immediately.
You're telling me you think that's a rational argument for ending heterosexual marriage under the government?

3)Staight people shouldn't be allowed to legally marry because they'll have sex with raccoons if they're married.

You can't PROVE it's not true, so it's rational, right!?

If you think that the first two aren't proven as false as they possibly could be by the statements following them, then NOTHING can be proven false to your statisfaction, and there are no irrational arguments in your world whatsoever, so the term rational argument is meaningless.

Does no one on here understand basic principles of philosophy, logic, and argument?
Debunked, by the way, MEANS to have been shown to be FALSE.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk

So if it can be debunked, it can be shown to be false, and if it's false, it's irrational to assert it as true.

The pinko-stinko tree-hugging vegetarian commie loving America hating Liberal-Progressives have a very high opinion of their intelligence.

ruveyn

If that was directed at me:
Not a vegetarian or a communist, like the country just fine, and I'm so far above it all, on the next level, the progressives can't see my hovertrail.
More importantly, though, I was a philosophy major.
I extensively studied arguing in all its vicissitudes, and I know that most people I meet without similar backgrounds who try to argue semantics with me tend to fail because I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this kind of thing.
It's what I did for fun with friends for years & years.
This has very little to do with my intelligence and everything to do with years of practice arguing about everything with people who know how to argue just as well as I do, some even better, just because we could.
This is geek sport.

I even argue with myself sometimes, just for the fun of it!

...

I decided I'm done. This is not something I should be spending time on.

Last edited by Janissy on 25 Apr 2014, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, so as I said, to you there is no such thing as an irrational argument, you just said so yourself, you agreed that NOTHING can be proven false, at least if it happens in the future, but that's what all these are, they're about the future.
Except both #1 & #2 are proven false by things happening NOW.
They're inductive proofs, to be sure, but they're valid, strong, inductive PROOFS.

Of course we can't deduce the future as you seem to be demanding for truth value to be determined, but since it is IMPOSSIBLE to deduce the future for ANYTHING with 100% accuracy, inductive proofs provide the best evidence available, and are thus are the only things which can be used to determine truth value, and thus the rationality of an argument in this case, and they are routinely used to do so in every science from physics to chemistry to biology to the social sciences.
Since both inductive proofs are unambivalent about the results over multiple studies conducted in different places, they're the strongest possible inductive proofs.
Yet for you it's still a toss up 50/50 can't tell for truth or falsehood?

That is irrational because it ignores the best available, unambivalent, repeatable evidence provided by the best science & evidence available.
If you ignore the scientifically collected evidence, you're ignoring reality, and if that's not irrational, then really nothing is is it?
Not religion, not magic, not phrenology.

You act as if the social sciences are any different from the 'hard' sciences, but they're not, AT ALL.
Both collect, study, and reach conclusions from objective data using the scientific method, then report the conclusions that data leads them to.
If studies are repeated with the same results multiple times, are peer reviewed, and use robust methodologies, and they all return the same conclusions, those conclusions are considered scientific facts.

You're denying hard scientific facts, or you're saying that scientific facts don't prove that an argument which contradicts those facts false.
Please, defend that for me, tell me how facts aren't facts because they're inductively gleaned as you sit there typing into a machine whose entire operation is predicated on layers upon layers of inductive proofs regarding the future.

Last edited by Bodyles on 25 Apr 2014, 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Whatever.

*sigh* Well, if scientific fact to you isn't actually fact because you refuse to acknoledge that the scientific method, objective evidence, repeated results, peer review, and robust data collection methodologies are all that's required to make any scientific fact and that this does not differ just because the science isn't studying something you approve like physics or chemistry as a 'hard' science, then you've decided to ignore reality in order to preserve factual ambiguity where none actually exists.

Since you refuse to acknowledge what the scientific community consider to be facts, there's no real reasoning with you, and this whole discussion is as pointless as it was when you started arguing over semantics with me about this in the first place.
In order to 'win', all you had to do was ignore the best evidence humanly possible provided by objective reality, also known as scientific fact.
Congratulations....

You're right, actively denying reality so you can state that facts are meaningless and so truth can't be discerned is something you really should spend less time doing.