Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

@joefromchicago,

Dear joefromchicago,
In reply to your post of 6/23/10:

Quote:

"Have I violated any of them?"

Yes.
1. You haven't given me the "yes" or "no" I've requested and that, per #2, you agreed to give. Please give it. If you refuse to, you're violating your agreement, again per #2, to be cooperative.

2. In addition, you're on the verge of terminating our exchange using as a test-criterion for error on my part what you find displeasing in what I'm posting rather than using the test-criteria for identifying error that you agreed to limit yourself to in #3. In other words, my error, and the basis for your terminating our discussion, winds up being what you find displeasing.

Quote:

"Now, back to your actual position: you haven't replied to my last substantive remarks, so I can only conclude that you agree that, by equating 'perversion' with 'homosexuality,' you object to homosexuals marrying because they're homosexuals. Am I correct?"

I already answered that question in my post to you of 6/22/10: "More accurately, the objection is to making such marriages part of the current cultural institution. If they want to go through a ceremony of their own devising and consider themselves married, I don't object to that."

Basically my answer is yes (note the "yes" answer), but we must make a distinction in California between the word "marriage" a) as what the homosexual couple considers marriage and their being married to be and b) what is recognized/approved as a cultural institution by the community. The same could probably be said of the marriage of bestialists.

In contrast to "b", with which I'm in agreement, I reject but tolerate "a".

Does that answer your question?

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Have I violated any of them?"

Yes.
1. You haven't given me the "yes" or "no" I've requested and that, per #2, you agreed to give. Please give it. If you refuse to, you're violating your agreement, again per #2, to be cooperative.

Sorry, your conditions, by their terms, do not apply to irrelevant side issues that are not susceptible to proof.

jackowens wrote:

2. In addition, you're on the verge of terminating our exchange using as a test-criterion for error on my part what you find displeasing in what I'm posting rather than using the test-criteria for identifying error that you agreed to limit yourself to in #3. In other words, my error, and the basis for your terminating our discussion, winds up being what you find displeasing.

I know that you are on the verge of terminating our exchange -- that's the only reason you keep harping on the conditions that I have already accepted. As for the rest of what you wrote, I have no idea what you're talking about. I identified the errors that you made. They have nothing to do with any displeasure I might be feeling.

jackowens wrote:

Basically my answer is yes...

Then I see no reason to pursue this any further. You object to homosexuals marrying because they're homosexuals. That's an ipse dixit. You admit that you have no basis for your argument except your own bare assertion. You lose.

0 Replies

Dear Friends,

If joefromchicago gets a completely free pass with a post like his last, it looks very much like I'm on the wrong forum.

Anyone?

Regards to all,

Jack

4 Replies

@jackowens,

What, in your mind, has Joe done wrong?

A
R
T

1 Reply

I see Jack's list of conditions don't apply to him. What a surprise. NOT.

0 Replies

@jackowens,

Quote:

If joefromchicago gets a completely free pass with a post like his last, it looks very much like I'm on the wrong forum.

If you don't like being recognized for what you are, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum. Go find one where people will let you pretend your prejudices aren't just that.

0 Replies

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Dear friends,
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

Dear Jack,

My vote would be to allow you to post foolishness, which you already can and do, by means of your preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such foolishness.

0 Replies

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

If joefromchicago gets a completely free pass with a post like his last, it looks very much like I'm on the wrong forum.

You lose. You quit. Just as I predicted.

0 Replies

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

If joefromchicago gets a completely free pass with a post like his last, it looks very much like I'm on the wrong forum.

Anyone?

Your call. You're free to leave or to stay. We don't have to approve of either decision.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/24/10:

Quote:

"What, in your mind, has Joe done wrong?"

He agreed to conform his posts to the method I suggested that we both use as a flooring for our discussion and then didn't do it --and without a peep from anyone. And I have to point that out to you? I sounds like you didn't read the last few posts that joefromchicago and I exchanged very carefully.

Anyway, I appreciate your question.

What I find intriguing here is that in just about any state in which this controversy arises the majority of the voters reject homosexual marriage, yet on this forum its acceptance seems to be unanimous. That's a pretty impressive --and strange-- imbalance.

Nevertheless, as joefromchicago says, I lose.

Regards,

Jack

2 Replies

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Nevertheless, as joefromchicago says, I lose.

Finally, a point upon which we can both agree.

0 Replies

Dear Friends,

Any further questions? Information wanted?

Regards to all,

Jack

1 Reply

@jackowens,

well, yes....

You could explain why your opening statement wasn't contradictory since marriage requires recognition by society and yet you claimed gays could marry as long as it isn't recognized.

That is #3 on your list jack. Could you at least hold yourself to your standards?

1 Reply

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"What, in your mind, has Joe done wrong?"

He agreed to conform his posts to the method I suggested that we both use as a flooring for our discussion and then didn't do it --and without a peep from anyone.

You've suggested this method, but you haven't really followed it. For example, you wanted a factual debate, but insist the debate moving forward using your opinion that homosexuality is sexual perversion. How can we have a factual debate if you and only you can dictate what is fact? If you can't follow your own rules, Joe certainly isn't bound by any obligation to follow them.

jackowens wrote:

And I have to point that out to you? I sounds like you didn't read the last few posts that joefromchicago and I exchanged very carefully.

I read them. I don't know what factual flooring you claim he has violated.

jackowens wrote:

What I find intriguing here is that in just about any state in which this controversy arises the majority of the voters reject homosexual marriage, yet on this forum its acceptance seems to be unanimous. That's a pretty impressive --and strange-- imbalance.

Argumentum ad populum.

Quote:

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Most people didn't want racial integration either. The problem with doing an appeal to the masses is that the masses have not duty to be informed, logical, or rational. You can either defend the idea that homosexuality is bad, or you can concede. You do not have the privilege to hide behind logical fallacy.

jackowens wrote:

Nevertheless, as joefromchicago says, I lose.

Well, I agree with joe. Your rules agree with joe as well.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@parados,

Dear parados

In reply to your post of 6/25/10:

Quote:

"You could explain why your opening statement wasn't contradictory since marriage requires recognition by society and yet you claimed gays could marry as long as it isn't recognized."

Before we get into what you consider a contradiction on my part, do you accept the numbered flooring I suggested to you? There's no use in my getting into whether what I wrote conforms or doesn't conform to that flooring if you unwilling to conform to it along with me. Of course if you think that that suggested flooring needs to be modified, that's another option that you have.

Let's start with that as a preliminary.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dear failures art,
In reply to your post of 6/25/10:

Quote:

"You've suggested this method, but you haven't really followed it."

Before we go any further, does the method that I suggest we use as a flooring seem reasonable to you? Are you willing to follow it along with me? Or do you think it needs to be modified before being willing to follow it. I notice that you're willing to use both of the test-criteria for identifying errors (fallacies and contradictions) against me to prove me wrong, so that seems to be a gain --IF you're also willing to accept them as showing errors on your part, of course.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@jackowens,

Let's start with whether you are willing to follow those rules Jack.

Once you agree to the rules then we can apply them in order of posts. When we get to one of my posts that you think breaks the rules we will deal with my compliance at that point. As of now, we have you breaking the rules. When you comply then we can deal with others complying.

1 Reply

@parados,

So you see Jack..
When we apply rule 4 to your first post

Quote:

4. Errors are to be sought on both sides of the issue. Progress will consist in seeking, identifying, agreeing on and discarding them. They will not be left inconclusive to clog up the exchange

That means we can't progress until we identify and agree on your statement or else you discard it. Until such a thing happens you are violating rule 4.

1 Reply

@jackowens,

All debates must be factually based jack. You didn't invent this concept. These aren't your rules. I have (and would have) presented facts without your request to do so. I have (and would have) presented you with illustrations of your logical fallacies. I have been cooperative in replying directly to your questions.

You have not been factual based. You have not been able to provide logical support to place the (as you put it "inevitable") contradiction on anyone here. You have not been able to admit your can be wrong. You have not been cooperative.

So your question:

jackowens wrote:

... does the method that I suggest we use as a flooring seem reasonable to you?

My answer: No. It is perfectly reasonable. Reasonable people participate in cooperative, factual, and logical debate. My question to you is are you willing to be a reasonable person?

It's completely your choice if you wish to stay and debate. A2K is not so hard up for people to debate that members here will entertain unreasonable or hypocritical demands such that one poster does not leave. I appreciate your attempt to be civil and polite, but I'll gladly trade it for a challenging and logical argument with facts. My suggestion is that you stop trying to pose as the referee. If you want to call foul, then YOU present the logical fallacy that I (or anyone else) has made and allow for us to restate or withdraw.

I am very confident that ethical, moral, logical, and factual thought sides with same sex couples ability to marry and receive the same civil protections offered to heterosexual couples. I have no problem, and I am eager to defend this. If you believe you can challenge me on that front, do so. Otherwise, find an easier pond to swim in if you are not capable.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@parados,

Dear Parados,

In reply to your two posts of 6/25/10:

I've asked you twice, without a reply from you, if you agree to the numbered points that I suggest that we use as a flooring. I'd like to nail that down solidly. Obviously I agree to them or I wouldn't have proposed that we use them. So let's take this a step at a time: you either agree to use them, making them our method/flooring for an attempt to resolve the controversy over homosesexual marriage, or you disagree. If you disagree, please tell me what changes are needed to make it our, rather than my, method/flooring.

After that agreement the next step --that you've already prematurely jumped to-- is as to whether each of us is actually adhering to our, not my method/flooring.

On the other hand, if you are not interested in reaching an agreed-on method/flooring for resolving this issue, we can't continue.

Regards,

Jack

2 Replies

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know