6
   

Vote For Me!

 
 
Chumly
 
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 07:42 pm
1) All sexual acts and between consenting adults to be legalized, plus all prostitution between consenting adults, plus all public nudity. The war to uphold puritanical sexual mores is an abysmal failure.

2) Removal of the tax exempt status of all religious organizations. Tax sponsorship of superstition and ignorance is counterproductive.

4) Legalize all drugs. The war on drugs is an abysmal failure.

5) Address overpopulation through widespread birth control. It's the premier immediate concern to mankind's survival. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 1,203 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 08:11 pm
@Chumly,
So you're running on a straight Leftist ticket, huh?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 09:55 pm
@Ticomaya,
Nope it's a religious conservative agenda!

The religion being the belief in Mankind, and Conservative as to ensuring I can drive a gas guzzling SUV plus getting the government out of my bedroom, out of my body, and the separation of church and state
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:13 pm
@Chumly,
All sexual acts between consenting adults? If two adults agree that one should cut the others fingers off for a sexual thrill, would you want this to be legal?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:28 pm
@maxdancona,
The Straw Man fallacy is committed by maxdancona as he simply ignored my actual position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented version.

As such, if amputation is part of a sexual act between consenting adults, then why not add the Slippery Slope to your fallacies and aver that murder is simply sexual foreplay as long as you get agreement prior?
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:28 pm
@Chumly,
Yup, on governments out of bedrooms. Prostitution laws are pretty much null and void at the moment, as for public nudity. I dunno if I wanna see most of the people that would take this up. My eyes!!
What about churches that run schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens or are we taking mega churches that make rich men out of snake oil salesmen?
Yup on drugs.
I agree on birth control, but when women/girls are given a good education and some opportunity, the birthrate starts to naturally fall.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:36 pm
@Chumly,
You made the following statement.

Quote:
All sexual acts and between consenting adults to be legalized


This is certainly an absolutist statement and an extreme one. If you really meant "all sexual acts between consenting adults" then my example is hardly a strawman.

If you didn't intend "all sexual acts between consenting adults" to really mean "all sexual acts" then you should qualify your statement. The point I am trying to make is that such absolutist proclamations are problematic.

I agree that many sexual acts between consenting adults should be legal, but I wouldn't be willing to make the broad, simplistic statement you are making.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:36 pm
@Chumly,
How would you legalize all drugs without legalizing suicide?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:37 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
So you're running on a straight Leftist ticket, huh?


I am a straight Leftist Tico. This isn't my ticket.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:45 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Yup, on governments out of bedrooms. Prostitution laws are pretty much null and void at the moment, as for public nudity. I dunno if I wanna see most of the people that would take this up. My eyes!!
What about churches that run schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens or are we taking mega churches that make rich men out of snake oil salesmen?
Yup on drugs.
I agree on birth control, but when women/girls are given a good education and some opportunity, the birthrate starts to naturally fall.
After a while you'd get so used to seeing people in various stages of undress (as suits the individual) you'd think nothing much of it

It's true that some portions of some religions help in socially beneficial ways, and if they wished to continue in that regard they would have to have do so in a manner that did not also promote their brand of superstition and yep it would be to stop the abuse of the mega-churches that make rich men out of snake oil salesmen.

I do not think that civic minded religionists would give up on schools, hospitals, orphanages and soup kitchens if there was separation of church and state (AKA loss of tax exempt status).
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 11:03 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

How would you legalize all drugs without legalizing suicide?
Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 11:21 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You made the following statement.

Quote:
All sexual acts and between consenting adults to be legalized


This is certainly an absolutist statement and an extreme one. If you really meant "all sexual acts between consenting adults" then my example is hardly a strawman.

If you didn't intend "all sexual acts between consenting adults" to really mean "all sexual acts" then you should qualify your statement. The point I am trying to make is that such absolutist proclamations are problematic.

I agree that many sexual acts between consenting adults should be legal, but I wouldn't be willing to make the broad, simplistic statement you are making.

Yes it's a strawman logical fallacy as you misrepresent my position. As you'll recall it's you who made the association with amputation.

Further, you fall into the trap of the appeal to extremes fallacy. You erroneously attempt to make my reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes as per the association with amputation.

Further, you are now relying on the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam as per a consequential portion of your last post. I do not abide by something becoming true simply because it is repeated often enough.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 11:35 pm
@Chumly,
It is you who are making the appeal to extremes Chumly. Your statemeent "All sexual acts between consenting adults" is an extreme statement. You are apparently unwilling to qualify it.

The statement "All drugs should be legalized" is another extreme statement. It is my opinion that drugs like crystal meth are pretty much death sentences meaning that taking crystal meth is not substantially different than suicide. Even if Crystal Meth isn't a death sentence you could certainly imagine a drug that is (which you would say should be legal if you really mean "all drugs").

You are making extreme, unqualified statements. I am not making them absurd. They are absurd.

My real issue here is that there are complex issues to legalizing drugs, such as the fact that there are drugs that are very dangerous where most of the people who take them die of these drugs. I am willing to draw a line between different classes of drugs. I am not willing to legalize drugs that are certain death. There is a line to be drawn somewhere.

By taking the extreme position that you are taking, to legalize "all drugs", in my opinion you are sweeping the difficult social issues under the rug.

When you say you would legalize all drugs, do you really mean "all drugs"? Are you willing to legalize drugs that mean certain death for people who take them? Where do you draw the line?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 03:22 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
It is you who are making the appeal to extremes Chumly. Your statement "All sexual acts between consenting adults" is an extreme statement. You are apparently unwilling to qualify it.

The statement "All drugs should be legalized" is another extreme statement. It is my opinion that drugs like crystal meth are pretty much death sentences meaning that taking crystal meth is not substantially different than suicide. Even if Crystal Meth isn't a death sentence you could certainly imagine a drug that is (which you would say should be legal if you really mean "all drugs").

You are making extreme, unqualified statements. I am not making them absurd. They are absurd.

My real issue here is that there are complex issues to legalizing drugs, such as the fact that there are drugs that are very dangerous where most of the people who take them die of these drugs. I am willing to draw a line between different classes of drugs. I am not willing to legalize drugs that are certain death. There is a line to be drawn somewhere.

By taking the extreme position that you are taking, to legalize "all drugs", in my opinion you are sweeping the difficult social issues under the rug.

When you say you would legalize all drugs, do you really mean "all drugs"? Are you willing to legalize drugs that mean certain death for people who take them? Where do you draw the line?
Your claim that I am "unwilling to qualify it" (sic) is patently false and is nothing more than another of your logical fallacies (red herring) in that it misleads or distracts from the relevant issue. To wit, you have made claims as to amputation being a part of a sexual act. In fact however, you have never requested from me to define my terms in context as per "1) All sexual acts and between consenting adults to be legalized, plus all prostitution between consenting adults, plus all public nudity. The war to uphold puritanical sexual mores is an abysmal failure." but have instead relied on a plethora of logical fallacies and spurious argumentation.

Most particularly of late has been your reliance on the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy, and as discussed it's a logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. I should point out that the more you rely on logical fallacies in particular the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy, the less likely I am to give credence to your texts.

Your claim that I said "All drugs should be legalized" is nothing more than another of your logical fallacies, in this case quoting out of context. As such your opinions on crystal meth are not in the context of the second sentence of "4) Legalize all drugs. The war on drugs is an abysmal failure".

Your claim that "You are making extreme, unqualified statements" (sic) is itself an extreme, unqualified statement supported by nothing more that a number of as discussed.logical fallacies.

Lastly, you ask: "When you say you would legalize all drugs, do you really mean all drugs?" At the risk of repetition the answer is no different than as expressed in my first post. However I speculate from your prior text as per crystal meth, that you may construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage. If it is true that you construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage, then you would not only be incorrect in this assessment but you would also be guilty of the logical fallacy leaping to a conclusion.

If in fact you do not construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage, then my speculation was incorrect.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 08:00 am
Well fine then Chumly.

I disagree with your points as they are stated. Since you are unwilling to discuss them in any meaningful way then I suppose it will have to stay that way. As soon as disagreement becomes "logical fallacy" (sic Wink ), there is no opportunity for any interesting conversation.

Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:29 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't mind chatting however the basics of argumentation are not an unreasonable expectation. And in that regard you run afoul of logical fallacies often. Claiming that your logical fallacies are disagreements does not change that fact. For me, interesting conversation would require claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence.

I was sick with the flu and then got quite busy with other endeavors. To amply on one of the reasons to vote for me as per: "4) Legalize all drugs. The war on drugs is an abysmal failure". Given that arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence, have a look-see:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/

National Geographic Narco Bling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1W_FYbWo6c
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 10:31 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
Given that arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence,


No they're not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Sex and Evolution - Discussion by gungasnake
Sex Affairs and Public Figures - Discussion by Thomas
Pre cum and ejaculate - Question by Chelsea120
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
sexodus - Discussion by gungasnake
Why Judaism rejected homosexuality - Discussion by gungasnake
am i addicted to masterbation? - Question by 23Flotsofquestions
Hairfall and sex - Question by out-mounty
I'm 31 and bad at sex - Question by BadAtSex
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Vote For Me!
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 06:25:28