California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Do these individual rights apply to the draft?

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

spendius wrote:

One might imagine two homosexuals on $45,000 each starting a campaign to get laundry services tax allowed on the grounds that their rights are being infringed because chaps with wives get it done free. Prop 6969. And it being voted for if it had enough supporters. And claiming for a "wife" each.

what century do you live in?

What's your actual problem with that dj? Do you think these funded pressure groups will just disband if these matters are decided in their favour. In that event what do you think they will turn to to keep their business going?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Is that similar to women getting together to try to win equal pay for equal work?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well-start paying mothers for bringing up children.

Define work.

2 Replies

@spendius,

We need women to bring children up more than we need two power dressed body fascists on either side of every winner at the races.

0 Replies

@spendius,

You're too dumb to have an answer for "both" situations.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Define work you evader of questions about the meaning of your own posts.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Your probably alone in wanting a definition for work. 99.99999% of people who are alive knows what work is. The rest are those suffering from mental handicap - which includes you.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That is not a definition of work. Nor is it an attempt to provide one which is what you were asked to do in view of you having used the word in one of your posts. Insulting other posters gratuitously as a smokescreen to try to hide the fact that you don't even know the meaning of your own posts speaks volumes for your underestimation of the intelligence of A2Kers.

0 Replies

Despite Cyclo giving us lectures on the "black swan" fallacy after using it himself in relation to DSM by only considering what DSM had said rather than considering the possible agenda behind it is it the case that not all homosexuals are supporting the push to get homosexual relations recognised officially as marriages.

Are there homosexuals who are opposed to such a policy?

All of the homs I have ever seen have been pushing the policy. Therefore, all homs are pushing the policy.
Here's a hom not pushing the policy.
All homs are pushing the policy, therefore he can't be a hom.

Is there a possibility that a significant proportion of homs are not pushing the policy and prefer to remain anonymous.

2 Replies

@spendius,

What agenda are you referring to? What is this agenda? What's your agenda?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Despite Cyclo giving us lectures on the "black swan" fallacy after using it himself in relation to DSM by only considering what DSM had said rather than considering the possible agenda behind it is it the case that not all homosexuals are supporting the push to get homosexual relations recognised officially as marriages.

What you pretend re: the DSM has nothing to do with a Black Swan fallacy. You just throw terms around without understanding anything about their meaning at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@failures art,

Figuring out spendi's agenda is very simple; he wants to spread his kind of ignorance to the world.

0 Replies

@failures art,

My agenda has been stated. And is obvious. On the highest plane I'm defending the "Goddess". At a mundane level the public vote for Prop 8. I'm not an organisation like the DSM.

Quote:

The DSM has attracted controversy and criticism as well as praise. There have been five revisions since it was first published in 1952, gradually including more mental disorders, although some have been removed and are no longer considered to be mental disorders, most notably including homosexuality.

What changed their mind in 1952. Nobody changed the laws of thermodynamics or the table of the elements. That there was a reclassification of homosexuality could not have been from a scientific point of view. Which thus seems to me to be a politically motivated change which could, in extremis, be continued, if enough homosexuals are produced by the process I described earlier, up to the point of declaring heterosexuality and monogamy to be mental disorders. Indeed Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World, envisaged permanent relationships as anti-social and if persisted in subject to sanctions. More than two nights with the same woman was frowned upon. Obviously it was fiction but good fiction will extrapolate from existing trends.

The situation is not static fa. It is a dynamic process of constant becoming with change feeding change and at accelerating rates. "It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls."

I'm a fusty old conservative you see. Is that allowed? How are you with cross-dressing congressmen turning up for televised debates looking like Edna Everage?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

My agenda has been stated. And is obvious. On the highest plane I'm defending the "Goddess". At a mundane level the public vote for Prop 8. I'm not an organisation like the DSM.

The DSM is not an organization. So that's a major error right there.

Quote:

What changed their mind in 1952. Nobody changed the laws of thermodynamics or the table of the elements. That there was a reclassification of homosexuality could not have been from a scientific point of view.

I put in italics your mistake; this is an assertion on your part for which you have no proof. The truth is the opposite - greater scientific inquiry did in fact lead to reclassification of homosexuality as a normal thing, because it was found to occur normally in our population.

Quote:

I'm a fusty old conservative you see. Is that allowed? How are you with cross-dressing congressmen turning up for televised debates looking like Edna Everage?

Why should a person's appearance be important? I'm sure you would agree with me that a person's appearance is in fact one of the least important factors when it comes to judging whether or not they could do a good job.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

spendi likes to judge people by their looks, and not their character.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What you pretend re: the DSM has nothing to do with a Black Swan fallacy. You just throw terms around without understanding anything about their meaning at all.

Turn it up Cyclo. You'll end up as bad as cicerone imposter if you keep that up.

Of course assuming that's there's nothing more to DSM that what it says is a Black Swan fallacy. Pre-nup agreements are based on recognising that vows and promises are the same.

You used the fallacy in that post quoting the DSM. People who quote Fox News you will say are using it. When you use it you just assert you didn't.

I've been dealing with it on the evolution threads for six years. Pretending that organised religion has no valid function is an extreme example. The Ignore button is as well. It has dangers. It can be used to justify paranormal attitudes as your first mention of it proved. You scoffed at the idea that something doesn't exist if you haven't observed it. Then you couldn't even imagine that DSM might have a hidden agenda despite the American Psychiatric Association having a cash interest in finding more and more mental disorders for them to treat. You couldn't see it so it doesn't exist. And why? I'll tell you. Because it said something you approved of in one instance. It probably has names for most of your conditions.

As for my not understanding such a simple thing as the black swan fallacy--dream on. My knowing it is in more or less permanent operation on A2K, I'll exclude Trivia and Word Games, is the only cause of so much misunderstanding of my posts. You ******* silly moocow.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Describe to me, in your own words, what a Black Swan fallacy even is. I don't think you can do it without looking it up, because you are using the term incorrectly over and over again.

Quote:

Then you couldn't even imagine that DSM might have a hidden agenda despite the American Psychiatric Association having a cash interest in finding more and more mental disorders for them to treat.

This shows a great ignorance on your part as to how the DSM is written and how the APA works. Rest assured that American psychologists and psychiatrists are in need of no further disorders to treat in order to keep food on the table.

Not only that, it doesn't make sense. If the APA was looking for more things to be classified as disorders to treat, they would hardly be taking things out of the DSM, would they?

You are deeply and profoundly ignorant as to what you are talking about, Spendi. You have no real knowledge of the subject, and I think that it's accurate to say that you really are nothing more than a Troll on this and the Evolution thread. You have been consistently shown to be logically and factually incorrect, but you just don't give a ****, because in your head your opinion trumps every bit of evidence that others present. You cast back a hundred years for supporting evidence, because no actual psychologists have agreed with you in about that long.

In short, you're a wanker, Spendi. You play this game for your own enjoyment, because you like riling up Liberals. I'm bored with it. I'm just going to go back to insulting your idiocy instead of trying to have a logical conversation with you, because frankly you're not capable of handling it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The DSM is not an organization. So that's a major error right there.

It's a publication of the American Psychiatric Association. That's an organisation. DSM is its mouthparts. Or one of them. It has a few mouths I should imagine. Friends in media conglomerates for example. Lobby groups.

Quote:

I put in italics your mistake; this is an assertion on your part for which you have no proof. The truth is the opposite - greater scientific inquiry did in fact lead to reclassification of homosexuality as a normal thing, because it was found to occur normally in our population.

No it didn't. The change was political. The situation pre-1952 was also political. You have noticed I hope that there are more homosexuals in media and government bureaucracies than there are in industrial occupations. It might have been regraded simply because the APA had found it untreatable and thus of no use to their expansion plans.

And the topic is not whether a population has a small number of homosexuals as a normal state of affairs. I don't know the answer to that and I have never said I do. Nor commented on the matter. The topic is about granting them official status as "married".

Quote:

Why should a person's appearance be important? I'm sure you would agree with me that a person's appearance is in fact one of the least important factors when it comes to judging whether or not they could do a good job.

I made no reference to that point. I asked how would you be about a congressman making a speech on, say, Afghanistan, dressed like a dowager. If the appearance of them is not a factor why is every single male congressman wearing a suit and tie?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I have described it above. Your statement quoting DSM employed it.

And why do you ask me to describe it and then claim I am a wanker (an assertion), that I'm playing a game (an assertion), that I like riling up liberals (an assertion), that you're bored (an obviously false assertion), that you're going back to insulting my idiocy (an assertion), you're not going to have a logical conversation with me (a fact-you never have) and that I'm not capable of handling such a conversation (an assertion.) All black swan fallacies, except the one I singled out.

[quore]This shows a great ignorance on your part as to how the DSM is written and how the APA works. Rest assured that American psychologists and psychiatrists are in need of no further disorders to treat in order to keep food on the table.[/quote]

Give over. The pleasures of a consumer driven society know no limits to their satisfactions. They are insatiable.

Quote:

If the APA was looking for more things to be classified as disorders to treat, they would hardly be taking things out of the DSM, would they?

Another black swan fallacy. Political pressure took it out. They were homophobic before 1952. Then they decided it was best not to be. A strategy. And I gave another reason.

It would be more efficient if you admitted defeat by stamping your foot, marching out of the door and slamming it behind you hard enough for the echo to drown out your receding footsteps.

1 Reply

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know