1
   

Homosexual Agenda Exposed!!!!!!

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:22 pm
Suit yourself Scrat. I won't try to convince you of your circular logic and will have to settle for pointing it out for others.

Yes, there was no heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and thankfully the warnings and behavior modification helped.

In other nations where similar efforts to get the warnings out to heterosexuals were made prevention of epidemic was also achieved.

To fault the warnings for sucessfully changing behavior is flawed reasoning in very obvious ways.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:28 pm
Jer wrote:
I think that the media craze about HIV in the mid-80s is more likely what stopped an epidemic from occurring in N.America. I was in junior high at that point and there was a lot of formal discussion about HIV in school - everyone knew what they needed to do and most of us did use protection all the time.


If you were getting laid in junior high, I salute you.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:29 pm
I wonder if RC is really an aids awareness worker - knowing that by making statements like he did some idiot will spend a whack of his time getting the facts and everyone will talk about it.

Wink
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:30 pm
They started talking about it when I was in junior high - I started practicing when I got to senior high...gotta love being an exchange student Wink
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:36 pm
Had that sexy Canadian accent working for you, eh? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:40 pm
My guess is that I was the new young toy in town and the older girls had a bet...I wish they'd keep betting...
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 04:53 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Scrat wrote:
No, in other words, the original assumption that one could look at the spread of AIDS in Africa and infer that the same thing would happen in the US was flawed because it was based on a flawed premise; the the conditions under which AIDS transmission was rampant in Africa existed to the same degree in the US. They did and do not.


BECAUSE of said warnings.

Quote:
Inductive Fallacies

Inductive reasoning consists on inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.

For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.

All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.

No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true.

Fallacy of Exclusion

Definition:
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Examples:
(i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton vote Liberal or N.D.P.)

(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came over last place teams, and today they are playing the first place team.)

Proof:
Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will change the conclusion.

Or, in this case:

Sex education reduces AIDS, and most Africans have less sex education than Americans, so the higher African AIDS rates are due to their lack of sex education. (Americans have lower STD rates than Africans and a person is more easily infected with AIDS when they have an STD.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 05:04 pm
Jer wrote:
Dlowan,

This is probably the first time I've defended Scrat's position on something because I believe when he said:

"ideal* heterosexual sex"

he meant:

"non-traumatic vaginal intercourse" as stated in my previous post.

I think it's a problem with the way he worded it rather than his intention.

*That's the only part I'm defending*



-----------------------
-----------------------

It is true that HIV is much harder to pass through "non-traumatic vaginal intercourse" than through anal sex. Please note that while researching my previous post I did come across an interesting stat that said 10% of hetero couples engaged in anal sex - so that risk is still there.

This next statement is pure speculation on my part, but it does seem logical...I think that hetero couples may be more likely to use condoms to avoid pregnancy (no risk with gay intercourse) and a side effect of that is a lowered incidence of HIV.

In poorer countries condom use is substantially less which leads to the epidemic some poorer countries are facing.


LOL! I wasna so very much attacking, really - I wondered if that was what he meant, so I asked - but wasn't sure (it never pays to think you know what other people mean sexually, I have discovered!) - but it IS an odd phrase, no?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 05:23 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Suit yourself Scrat. I won't try to convince you of your circular logic and will have to settle for pointing it out for others.

Your arrogance is unbelievable. I am telling you that what you are inferring is NOT what I wrote nor what I meant; yet you have the hubris to continue to tell me what I mean.

Whatever... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 06:00 pm
ILZ,

I strongly disagree with you.

The civil rights movement was just that -- a movement for civil rights. You don't honor the movement by limiting it.

Many of us who were very involved in the struggle for racial equality are the same people who are fighting for the rights of homosexuals.

Homosexuals have faced many of the same injustices that blacks have faced. including murder, discrimination and limits on who can marry whom. Homosexuals were not victims of slavery, but they were victims of the holocaust. The discrimination homosexuals have faced is very simlar to the discrimination faced by blacks.

And the struggle for the right to marry is the same as well. You will remember that until recently there were laws it will illegal for blacks and whites to marry.

The right to marry is just a part - but an important part - of the long struggle for civil rights in this country. How would you feel now if you were only allowed a "civil union" if you wanted to marry the person you loved because of race? It wasn't that long ago that we gained this right.

The real lesson of the civil rights movement is that prejudices run deep. We have had to struggle very hard against deeply held ideas to ensure that people were not denied civil rights because of their race.

The civil rights that we won, were won in part because people were forced to face their predjudices and change their beliefs.

Now I am asking you to do the same.

That you are now willing to deny the rights of others should make you think twice.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:02 pm
Tarantulas,

You have established that you can copy and paste a description of a fallacy. What you have not established is the ability to connect said alleged fallacies to anything I said.

I welcome an attempt. It will be fun. See anyone can drop names when it comes to fallacy and anyone can copy and paste and I'm asking you to actually *gasp* make the case for it because I do not think you will be able to.

Try it, see if you can do more than copy and paste the description of a fallacy of which you have little understanding.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:04 pm
Seconding on ebrown...

Of course black Americans have suffered magnitudes more than have homosexual Americans. But magnitude isn't the issue.

If it were, then one could bring up the Holocaust as a comparison of even greater social injustice and deny that blacks in America had/have anything to complain about.

The issue isn't magnitude, it's bigotry.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:04 pm
Scrat wrote:

Your arrogance is unbelievable. I am telling you that what you are inferring is NOT what I wrote nor what I meant; yet you have the hubris to continue to tell me what I mean.

Whatever... Rolling Eyes


Laughing

"I'm telling you that I'm not using circular loging and gosh darn it you have the hubris to contradict me and assert that I am."

Yes, Scrat, I see why you'd like to take your arguments in a different light and have already said I'm willing to live with my failure to convince you of the deficiencies of your argument.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:14 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Homosexuals have faced many of the same injustices ... including ... limits on who can marry whom.

I hate to keep flogging this horse, but we ALL face the SAME LIMITS on who can marry whom. I have no more right to marry someone of the same gender than does a homosexual, nor does he or she have any less right to marry someone of the opposite gender than do I.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:19 pm
Scrat wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Homosexuals have faced many of the same injustices ... including ... limits on who can marry whom.

I hate to keep flogging this horse, but we ALL face the SAME LIMITS on who can marry whom. I have no more right to marry someone of the same gender than does a homosexual, nor does he or she have any less right to marry someone of the opposite gender than do I.


The difference is that one group can marry the ones they love and the others can't. You concistently use word play to try to assert equality but ultimately the fact is that some can marry their spouses and others can't.

To use your logic segregation was fair.

"Both whites and blacks are equal in that we can't go to each other's schools."

The fallacy in your argument is that seizing on one angle to make it sound "equal" is equated to overall fairness.

In this case, you are making an absurd contention, saying it's fair because homosexuals can marry people to whom they have no attraction and that heterosexuals are similarly limited because they can't marry someone they have no attraction to.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:46 pm
Scrat wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Homosexuals have faced many of the same injustices ... including ... limits on who can marry whom.

I hate to keep flogging this horse, but we ALL face the SAME LIMITS on who can marry whom. I have no more right to marry someone of the same gender than does a homosexual, nor does he or she have any less right to marry someone of the opposite gender than do I.


Bull,

I am the child of an interacial family and the husband in an interracial family. Americans had to fight very hard to ensure the right to marry any person regardless of their race. Try to tell me that we all have the right to marry someone of the same race I tell you where to go.

The fight for homosexual marriage is the same fight. There is no reason to keep someone from marrying the person they love just because of his gender or for his race.

My Marriage is between me, my spouse and my God.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 09:25 pm
First, you are making an erroneous assumption. I am not against same-gender unions, even if called "marriages". What I am against is using poorly considered arguments to support what you believe in.

The reality is that a law that forbade everyone from marrying outside their race would pass equal protection muster so long as it was applied to everyone equally. That doesn't mean such a law would be right, it just means that it wouldn't be unconstitutional (at least not for equal protection reasons).

Now, you can pretend that I'm supporting those outdated and despicable laws, or you can recognize that I'm not writing of what I think is "right" or "wrong" but of what I think is and is not a legitimate legal argument in support of what I think is right.

The question of whether a law is APPLIED equally cannot be measured by whether it has an equal IMPACT based solely on whether a given individual desires what the law forbids or does not. Laws against pedophilia would fail such a test, since they have no impact on me but restrict a pedophile from that which he desires.

The reality (as I see it) is that current marriage laws that forbid same-gender marriage are applied equally but have an unequal impact. That means we should look to legislatures for our remedy rather than to justices.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 09:31 pm
Quote:
That means we should look to legislatures for our remedy rather than to justices.

scrat...what concern, then, might the SC or lower courts ever have regarding constitutionality? No role at all? And if a legislature sought, as did Rhea County, to make it unlawful for any gay persons to live within the bounds of that county, is it then appropriate to leave such a matter and consider it settled now that elected officials have established the law? Or if, by referendum, the majority agreed that no gay people could live in a (pick your jurisdiction), then again, the matter would be appropriately established, with any move from the courts to change this legislation being inappropriate?
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 09:36 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Tarantulas,

You have established that you can copy and paste a description of a fallacy. What you have not established is the ability to connect said alleged fallacies to anything I said.

I welcome an attempt. It will be fun. See anyone can drop names when it comes to fallacy and anyone can copy and paste and I'm asking you to actually *gasp* make the case for it because I do not think you will be able to.

Try it, see if you can do more than copy and paste the description of a fallacy of which you have little understanding.

* SHRUG *

I stand by my post. I explained your fallacious reasoning after the definition (that's how the fallacy is connected to what you said). If you don't agree with it, then tell me why you think it's wrong.

To lay it out very clearly for you, here (paraphrased) is what you said:
Quote:
Sex education reduces AIDS, and most Africans have less sex education than Americans, so the higher African AIDS rates are due to their lack of sex education.

And here's the important evidence you excluded that makes your statement a fallacy:

Quote:
Americans have lower STD rates than Africans and a person is more easily infected with AIDS when they have an STD.

Okay?

EDIT - Added the word "(paraphrased)"
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 09:44 pm
Tarantulas wrote:


Sex education reduces AIDS, and most Africans have less sex education than Americans, so the higher African AIDS rates are due to their lack of sex education. (Americans have lower STD rates than Africans and a person is more easily infected with AIDS when they have an STD.)

I'm confused, when you attributed this quote to Craven, you said it was incorrect. Is it incorrect when anyone says it, or just when someone other than you says it, or only when someone points out that there are your own words? Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:45:10