why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

See how that "source" says "glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!?" That means there is nothing there to look at.

You would know this if you tried clicking on the link you provided, just once. Why should the rest of us have to scramble around trying to find your source material when you are admittedly too lazy yourself to even verify them?

Well this is typical. There were at least eight references listed there. You found a problem with one and dismissed the rest. This is a very common tactic in debate if you want to win a word fight at any cost.

BTW there are links at that site that deal with census data but it takes a person who wishes to go through a couple of links to get to it. However dismiss that link if you wish because you have done nothing with the other 8 or so. In fact cross out any 50% you find weak and deal with only the 50% that is left. Hows that?

 

[1robin]

Your position is so silly (not to mention morally repugnant- which, given your illusory sense of moral superiority, is an irony of epic proportions) and your arguments so bad, little more is required. Offering a serious argument would be like trying to reason with a child- you're not offering cogent or serious arguments, so you hardly deserve cogent or serious rebuttals. The fact that some posters have ventured to try to reason with you like an adult nevertheless is a gigantic act of charity on their part.

IO guess that since you have no serious argument you are trying to blame the lack on me. This is typical. That was one long commentary without a shred of evidence. Why is that worth typing.

Complain as much as you wish but my two primary claims have not even been dented.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.
2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Try again, give up if you want, but sarcastic commentaries are just a waste of time.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

2. What does matter and is apparently incomprehensible to many people here is that heterosexuality has justification for it's risks, homosexuality does not.

It's incomprehensible that anyone would seriously believe such a claim, that's true.

And several of us have easily proven that it's a confused and false claim, yet you ignore those proofs and continue to repost your failed argument, so....

 

[McBell]

Complain as much as you wish but my two primary claims have not even been dented.

I know you have a really hard time understanding this, but...
Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la" does not make the refutes of your "argument" disappear.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I know you have a really hard time understanding this, but...
Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la" does not make the refutes of your "argument" disappear.

Exactly. His views have been absolutely demolished- just not his confidence in them. Which is quite amusing, really.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Much of histories greatest research is not available by links. It exists in written form. I provided references in exactly the same form used for a thousand years. I can sympathize if it is to much trouble to look up (without a link) something I referenced but that does not mean the source is invalid. Why in the world are we discussing the philosophy of foot noting instead of homosexuality?

Like I said, you did not provide references in exactly the same form used for a thousand years. It was missing key information like dates and whereabouts it was published. Books and articles published hundreds of years ago are available online as well.

I spend a great deal of my time looking up and referencing journal articles. They're easy to find, provided someone gives you proper citation. I don't really want to make a big deal out of this, but if you're going to go on about what a big academic you are (and you do) and then provide faulty references, I have to wonder where you're coming from.

Some times I am very pressed for time and constantly have to provide links means I can not vet them all. All you have to do is tell me what link was substandard and I wilt find a better reference for the data I claimed. Most of my sources in this thread have been the CDC and papers that derived their data from good respected authorities on a very few are weaker than desired and i have offered to provide better sources if required.

If you don't have time to look them over first, then I suggest not providing them as evidence because you really have no idea what they say if that's how you're going about it.

It looks to me like all you're doing is cutting and pasting large swaths of links from websites without looking them over at all. And that bothers me because when I provide references, I do my best to first make sure they're academic/scientific in nature and second, to at least skim them over first.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only data I needed is one post I have provided many times from the CDC that indicates 4% of people who are homosexual create 60% of aids cases in the US.

You need much more than that. AIDS does not exist in a vacuum within the US.

My two primary contentions have no need of additional data. I have tried to provide other data as a courtesy but as it was secondary and unnecessary to back up my main contentions I did so in a hurry. Supply the data claims hat have weak sources one at a time and i will provide better sources or better data, but that is an auxiliary effort and does not effect my primary contentions.

Your two primary contentions need a ton of additional data. You don't get to just declare your opinions as facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well this is typical. There were at least eight references listed there. You found a problem with one and dismissed the rest. This is a very common tactic in debate if you want to win a word fight at any cost.

Don't give me this garbage. I spend way more time than I should have to, trying to sift through your links finding proper sources for the content you keep posting.

The one you keep posting over and over clearly says right beside it that the website is no longer in use. Do you look at what you post or not?

BTW there are links at that site that deal with census data but it takes a person who wishes to go through a couple of links to get to it. However dismiss that link if you wish because you have done nothing with the other 8 or so. In fact cross out any 50% you find weak and deal with only the 50% that is left. Hows that?

There is nothing on that site. At all. It has been shut down. So please don't lecture me on taking time out of my day trying to hunt down your sources.

 

[1robin]

It's incomprehensible that anyone would seriously believe such a claim, that's true.

And several of us have easily proven that it's a confused and false claim, yet you ignore those proofs and continue to repost your failed argument, so....

I have proven that claim over and over and over with CDC data, and data from a dozen other groups.

Do you realize claiming to have done X does not actually serve as evidence you ever did X?

If claims to something actually served as evidence something was done then you side would be tough to handle.

Those who prevail have no need of constantly claiming they have. Those that can't constantly claim they have.

 

[1robin]

Exactly. His views have been absolutely demolished- just not his confidence in them. Which is quite amusing, really.

If claims to something actually served as evidence something was done then you side would be tough to handle.

Those who prevail have no need of constantly claiming they have. Those that can't constantly claim they have.

Are you guys practicing mutual support or participating in a debate? No one has said anything that even has the theoretical potential to effect my primary claims. Claiming they have, only compounds the error.

 

[1robin]

Like I said, you did not provide references in exactly the same form used for a thousand years. It was missing key information like dates and whereabouts it was published. Books and articles published hundreds of years ago are available online as well.

That is demonstrably false. Everything I provided came from the footnotes on source material for a scholarly article. Your are claiming x is not X, and it will not work. I copied sources, how in the world are they not sources. I am growing weary with this off ramp. I have no desire to debate arbitrary demands concerning grammatical procedure.

I spend a great deal of my time looking up and referencing journal articles. They're easy to find, provided someone gives you proper citation. I don't really want to make a big deal out of this, but if you're going to go on about what a big academic you are (and you do) and then provide faulty references, I have to wonder where you're coming from.

I explained exhaustively what contributed to my source material in hat post. Your still being confused is confusing. I even said to give me any data my sources were weak concerning. Instead of doing that you are interminably questions motives explained in detail.

If you don't have time to look them over first, then I suggest not providing them as evidence because you really have no idea what they say if that's how you're going about it.

I provided them in the amount of time I had available as a courtesy because I was asked. I reserve the right to post according to my own standards and will do so.

It looks to me like all you're doing is cutting and pasting large swaths of links from websites without looking them over at all. And that bothers me because when I provide references, I do my best to first make sure they're academic/scientific in nature and second, to at least skim them over first.

I think that is exactly what I did only it was more than one site in that post. So what? How is that invalid. Is there any chance you will give me the data that needs additional sources or will the interminable complaints without interest in solutions be all that is offered.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If claims to something actually served as evidence something was done then you side would be tough to handle.

The problem is, you've repeatedly demonstrated an inability to recognize the difference. When you make a claim that is refuted, you backpeddle and whine, throw red herrings and non-sequiturs all over the place, and then a week or two later, start making the same (refuted) claim all over again. So your judgment about what constitutes evidence or refutations against your positions is clearly very unreliable, nor do these seem to be any impediment to you nevertheless holding and voicing these views. As I've pointed out, your views are entirely impervious to any facts or evidence- which shouldn't come as much surprise since they are held on the basis of zero evidence to begin with.

(now, commence some silly lecture about how you have adduced credible evidence for anything you've ever claimed in 3...2...1...)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have proven that claim over and over and over with CDC data, and data from a dozen other groups.

Really? You've proven that homosexuality has no justification for its risks?

Come on. Be serious. I dare you to quote CDC data that says homosexuality has no justification for its risks.

If you can post such data, I'll bow to you in public and lick your feet while I'm down there.

I double-dog dare you to post such data to back up your silly claim about homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

You need much more than that. AIDS does not exist in a vacuum within the US.

I actually need much less. Unless you have evidence aids acts in the exact opposite way based on geography it is over.

Your two primary contentions need a ton of additional data. You don't get to just declare your opinions as facts.

What opinions are you talking about? I have two main contentions and have supplied list after list after list full of data to satisfy anyone who preference does not prevent anything from getting through. There must be at least 30 different sets of data I have supplied that confirm what I claimed. There are reasons homosexuals have been prevented from giving blood. There are reasons one of the first questions a medical person who might contact your blood is your sexual status.There are reasons that homosexual prisoners are segregated. There are reasons homosexual blood is treated like a hazardous chemical spill by emergency workers. If something this astronomically self evident, well known, and indicated universally by virtually all relevant data can't be conceded then there is no hope anything can ever be resolved with people with that level of cognitive dissonance. It is truly appalling.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The evidence you've offered has no logical connection to the claims you're making. As AmbiguousGuy adequately calls attention to.

 

[1robin]

Really? You've proven that homosexuality has no justification for its risks?

Come on. Be serious. I dare you to quote CDC data that says homosexuality has no justification for its risks.

If you can post such data, I'll bow to you in public and lick your feet while I'm down there.

I double-dog dare you to post such data to back up your silly claim about homosexuality.

I have but it should not be necessary. The cost is in lives. Homosexuality produces no lives. It has no justification. Feels good never justifies someone else must die. That does not take much thinking to see the inequality in.


Your not paying attention to my posts. I said the CDC data proves what the cost is. The second point is a philosophical proposition about justification and qualities. I use evidence where it applies.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have but it should not be necessary. The cost is in lives. Homosexuality produces no lives. It has no justification.

A doozy of a non-sequitur.

 

[1robin]

The evidence you've offered has no logical connection to the claims you're making. As AmbiguousGuy adequately calls attention to.

As I pointed out the mistake is on your side not mine. I have two claims. The CDC data proves my first is true. The philosophical principles behind law and morality proves my second is right. Are you guys just so frustrated you are simply inventing stuff to avoid the inevitable? I rarely agree with you but in other subjects I at least can see what your saying but normally coherent people have lost all logic in this thread for some reason. Why?

I have looked and looked and restated my claims over and over again trying to see just what some of you think actually had any effect on them. I have shown it them to a PHD and as I speak an engineer buddy is looking them over. No one but your side of things sees any claims that have any effect on mine. I have given up trying to friend what you guys are talking about and have quit looking and asking. One last time what is it you think counters my claims.

 

[1robin]

A doozy of a non-sequitur.

Label it whatever you need to in order to dismiss it but it still stands whether you refuse to look or not. I can't remember the last actual argument anyone has made in homosexuality defense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Label it whatever you need to in order to dismiss it but it still stands whether you refuse to look or not.

I'll label it non-sequitur then, because your conclusion is not entailed by your premise. In other words, your argument is simply invalid. If you think an invalid argument "still stands", that shows how low your standards are for evidence and argumentation. And to be honest, that you're content with patently unsound arguments sort of explains everything.

I can't remember the last actual argument anyone has made in homosexuality defense.

Given that all of your views are utter immune to any sorts of evidence or reasoning, its no surprise that people have stopped trying to talk to you like an adult. More listening and thinking is required, less stamping your foot and repeating yourself.