The Land That Time Fag-gót

It's been an interesting few days here, what with fools coming out of the woodwork and all, so I want to take a moment to discuss a few things that seem to confuse them even more than usual.

The first is, It's not just liberals I consider to be scum, there are a whole lot of conservatives that fit that description as well. Sure the absolute numbers differ significantly, but you must remember this: a lot is still a lot.

Next, while I hate liberals, I hate idiots a lot more, so imagine how I feel about liberal idiots! Yes, I know that's redundant, so you get the picture, but I still refuse to admit that someone cannot be liberal without being stupid. That's why I've been on the quest. Sure it's been lonely, and unrewarding, but imagine if I find a rational liberal. It would be almost better than a talking dog. And what if he could lead me to yet another non-idiot liberal? I mean, doesn't there have to be more than one – unless they're gay and their breed is about to die out, but let's keep hope alive.

Next, there seems to be some concern about my assigning names to people, and I've never explained that here, so I'll do that now.* It's a little complicated, and I'm not at all sure liberals themselves will be able to follow. Therefore, I recommend they copy  this and show it to a fifth grader.

First, I like real names, say, "Ted," for example. If you have one of those weird foreign names or you choose something you think showcases your creativity - and you show up here, there's a good chance it'll remind me of a name I'm more familiar with. And if you're an idiot, I can guarantee it will.

But there are exceptions. If your name is simple enough or I find it to be delightful, I'll be thrilled to use it. Or if it's a name that lends itself to a common nickname, I like that. Of course the nickname also is dependent on how much I like you, So one person whose name reminds me of, oh I don't know, "Dog," well I'd use that and hope she finds it endearing, but if an idiot has a similar UID, I might use a less flattering reference to a dog. 

Then there are those odd names that don't delight me yet don't readily trigger something else. That could go one of two only ways:

A) I address you as is

2) I address you as I see you

C) I address someone else and ask them to relay the message

Bonus: I consider your name to be so stupid as to convey your essence and so don't address you at all.

Lastly, I want to say some things I haven't already said above: For example, even if you're a total whack job, if you use a real name, I'll use that. I might modify it a bit, like "Bob might become Bobo sometimes, or Jack might morph to Jackass, but at least you can kinda guess at what I'll call you, whereas something like Aput can become almost any "A" word – and likely will – and even change several; times in the course of one reply.

Although I must tell you a cute story which I swear is true about a guy who had the username, Francis. Well, I mean he was just asking' for it upfront, but all was OK for a while. Then one day, out of the blue, Francis surprises me and says I'm the rudest person he'd ever encountered online.

Of course I thanked him for the compliment, but then he says he didn't mean it as a compliment. Go figure. Anyway, so then I asked him, "Hey, didn't you make some movies with Donald O'Connor?

Imagine my surprise when now it's he who didn't think that was a compliment and he got all un-Francis-like.

Finally, I want to be really clear about this. I don't care who you are if you're thoughtful and logical. I mean, liberals think I enjoy demeaning them, but I'm just a mirror. It is they who demean themselves. And if anyone doubts me, just watch how I react the first time a liberal comes here and says something intelligent.

 

* Subject to change without notice owing to market volatility.and the volatility of the host

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Land That Time Fag-gót

  1. John says:

    "Finally, I want to be really clear about this. I don't care who you are
    if you're thoughtful and logical. I mean, liberals think I enjoy
    demeaning them, but I'm just a mirror. It is they who demean
    themselves. And if anyone doubts me, just watch how I react the first
    time a liberal comes here and says something intelligent."being a scientist, I've got to put this to the test – how would you classify me, as a liberal, conservative, or something else [1,2]? And would you consider any of my remarks to be "intelligent"?WRT to Ann, I don't like her method of delivery nor her ideological bias. So I pay as little attention to her as possible. Oddly enough, I do the same with Michael Moore and Al Franken…John[1] In geology, there is a joke that says "There are three type of people in the world. Those that use a dichotomous key and those that do not" (geologists being noted for using dichotomous keys, ternary diagrams, and whatever else works to sort out the mess).[2] My personal bias is toward the bull moose party; I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. My preference is for King Log, yet I am aware that Adam Smith called for government intervention in the marketplace to ensure a level-playing field and certain basic standards. I don't care who sleeps with whom nor what they do to/with/for each other before going to sleep as long as they are all consenting adults, but I do hold as axiomatic that bringing up healthy children is the bedrock of any healthy society. I believe that a woman's right to an abortion is absolute – and I am working toward the day when there will be none because all children are healthy, happy, and wanted. I don't care if two men, four women, or sixteen people of assorted genders want to get married in their church, but I don't think that the government should be giving any legal preferences to a form of marriage established by the ancient Egyptians to sort out primogeniture (especially given that it was used to encourage brother-sister incest).

  2. TedWest says:

    We approach things differently, but I think that you, being a scientist, do make an attempt to arrive at your conclusions (I'll do you the courtesy of not labeling them "beliefs") in an orderly, if not logical, manner. I say that because my wife is also a scientist, but interestingly, she doesn't share all of your conclusions.
    For example, she does feel that there's no easy answer for abortion and she would give the woman the right to choose, but not absolutely as you indicate, unless by "absolute" you mean until a certain point, say three months. Because no rational person would think she's not destroying a life at say, eight months.
    It's said, though not by me, that one cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I haven't tried, so I'll leave that debate to someone else – or possibly to us, later, All I really care about is what's necessary for a healthy society, and equally important, a decent society, and while I sympathize with your libertarian views, the biggest problem with libertarianism is it's lack of discipline. Libertarianism and decency have bigger compatibility issues than social and fiscal.
    If your first goal is, first and foremost, healthy children, much of what followed is not conducive to that. I mean, in principle, I agree that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like, but in practice, people cannot compartmentalize and by not assigning right or wrong values to those activities, it's inevitable that there will be a deleterious effect on children – and even if not on yours, on mine.
    And marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other relationship either does not advance society or is destructive of it. So I think that your conclusions on marriage were not arrived at by scientific method.
    Regarding Ann Coulter, she's now in a precarious position, I think, and it too is due to lack of discipline – something I didn't expect would ever be a problem with her.. I know from personal experience that in an effort to be outrageous, you can easily overstep, and once you've gone too far, it might be impossible to restore the credibility you once had, Rush Limbaugh being the best example of that – as well as the best example that it may be possible.
    Take for example the title of this thread. I don't like the word, and it served no particular purpose in the title. I only used it to discourage fools from returning. I know people want traffic, but I don't suffer fools gladly, and so if that word puts them off, it achieved its purpose. If it put off people others, and there is that risk, then it was bad judgment on my part.
    As for classifying you, I don't easily classify myself. I mean I call myself conservative, but that's for convenience, and because others I've seen who call themselves conservatives give the term a bad name, but I don't neatly fit at all if for no other reason than I am not religious – at all, though I do think that keeping intact our Judeo-Christian heritage is paramount. I just wish we could do that without all the Bible stuff.
    So I suggest that you and I discuss issues one on one, not as members of any ideology. Then it might be interesting to learn how you can have a sixteen person marriage and protect children at the same time?

  3. Oh this is tooooo good. I think intelligence is sexy. Being of a different gender, I thought it would interesting to throw in a different viewpoint. At a time in our society when Motherhood is looked down upon by the Liberal feminist and they want Abortion upon demand; I feel like an outcast in my own gender. I think the natural family unit, (father, mother and children), is the foundation of our country. I also think that abortion devalues life in other aspects of society. It allows the masses to be more tolerant of heinous crimes against humanity, when we should be outraged. I have determined in my own mind, (to avoid saying I believe), that the fact we do not have more stay at home Mothers; loving, nurturing and teaching their children has been at the root of the increase in minor aged children committing crimes including murder. I know I am not as articulate as either of you gentlemen, (but I am very clean), and probably not as educated, but I am a person of reason. Its been fun.

  4. John says:

    Well, it has been my experience that those who claim that father-mother-kids is the norm (even in yesterday's America) or the natural mode hasn't examined society or nature very closely. Divorce rates were higher in the 1930's than they are now, and "grass widows" appear to have been as common as unwed mothers are today. What can be said about marriage is that almost every mode possible has been tried at some point at some place. The Ma-Pa-Kid model was (as noted previously) brought forth from the Egyptians by way of the Romans, who wanted to simplify primoeniture. Such a model works well in highly stratified societies, but not as well in those with more class movement.The Pa-Ma-Ma-Kids model (polygyny for those who like exact words) was popular in many tirbal societies, including the Jews of biblical times, for many reasons. It allowed a quick increase in the number of progeny by any given male, while identifying infertility quickly. If the wives live together, then it concentrates resources and allows for division of labor. Polygyny is popular in many societies today, from Zulus in Africa to Muslims in Saudi Arabia.The Ma-Pa-Pa-Kids model is much rarer. Known as polyandry, it is typically found only in very isolated regions where more agressive cultures have not rooted it out. INterestingly, it is fairly common in nature, with the most obvious examples being certain species of insect and the naked mole rat.The group marriage model (true polygymy) is even rarer still in human affairs. It has been tried by some Christian groups and certain indigenous groups.It is most common in those cases where resources are so limited that all must share in order to survive.Other models that have been tried (and have worked for various lengths of time ranging from venturies to millenia) include the Pa-Ma-mistress variant (very popular in France, I am told), the Pa-Ma-cuckold variant (ibid), the Pa-Ma-Mistress-Catamite method (common in upper classes in ancient Greece and Rome), and the every-popular serial monogamy (a variant of polygymy that is prevalent in the US today).What this tells us is that any model can be suitable for the raising of children provided that it yeilds stability and resources sufficient to do so. JohnNext week, we divide up fiscal and social conservatism, decipher how to balance the rights of a child against those of its parent, and debate free silver.

  5. TedWest says:

    Maddy, we haven't talked one on one, but you've said and done a number of things in the short time I've been acquainted with you that impressed me, starting with your first post. I can't recall what you said, but I remember thinking "this broad ain't got air between the ears."
    You know I mean that in the nicest sense.
    Anyway, I don't regard either education or station in life as a mark of intelligence. In fact, I mentioned that I have a degree in economics, and one guy who often gets me irritated is Walter Williams, PhD and professor in the subject, who can say some stupid things.
    He's libertarian in his approach to money and ownership, and he's fond of saying that people deserve everything they earn and that the income tax is theft, pure and simple, especially for the… rich
    In fact, I regard the income tax as something far worse – slavery, but I do not regard taxing the rich as theft. That's a whole separate subject, so I won't even start to explain here.
    In a recent rant, Williams (as he often refers to himself) was droning on about his favorite theme, and I wrote him to say that his comments were ridiculously simplistic. he wrote me back asking for an explanation. I honored his request. He did not extend me the courtesy of a response, so I wrote to ask if that was how his mother brought him up? I'm still waiting.
    To me, the only thing that matters in life is the quality of one's thinking. Is it rational, does it follow logically? Or are there leaps? With liberals, there's always a leap – always.
    When I ventured over to Voicey's that one time, it was surreal, and I bet he feels he was quality educated. But if you look at his comments here, it's clear the LSD never wore off. same with Matthew.
    Oh, and in case you didn't realize, I name names. I love to name names as does Ann.
    Now about your comments on abortion, family etc., I would like for there to be no abortions, and John voiced similar sentiments. The trouble is that even if it was irresponsible for a woman to get pregnant, I don't want her life ruined by it. So I'm willing to leave the decision to her up to a point.
    But the US is about the most liberal nation in the world when it comes to the practice, and it ought to be significantly scaled back. And I wish we could return to the shame of unwed motherhood: loss of that shame is at least as important to the decay of the family as abortion. I mean, I don't know how the black and white abortion rates compare, but single black motherhood is severely disproportionate to that of whites, and you can judge for yourself how that's workin' out for them.
    That's why I told John that I felt his approach wasn't viable – in ends up in a Caligula-like environment, when it's order and discipline that make for great societies.
    I remember when I was younger and was outraged by "censorship" on TV. Now I long for it. Turns out, most words that they cut from movies actually detract for the film when they're left in.

  6. TedWest says:

    "What this tells us is that any model can be suitable for the raising of children provided that it yeilds stability and resources sufficient to do so. "
    No it doesn't, and if you continue to try to win arguments by overwhelming us with irrelevant data and then leaping to conclusions drawn therefrom, we're not going to get very far, you and me.
    For example, the fact that the divorce rate was higher at some prior time in no way invalidates the argument that traditional marriage is the most desirable form of relationship.
    To successfully argue that it's not, you would have to demonstrate that there is another form or a combination of forms that are equally desirable, and not just because some group wants them to be.
    The "Let's try it and see" approach may work in science, but it's too risky for an entire society.
    So at this point, it seems to me that you have decided the outcome you want, but you've offered no hard evidence and what you have offered is incomplete at best.
    I'll tell you the same thing I tell liberals: pick a single narrow point, and we'll argue that out, and if we can arrive at a consensus, we'll move to the next.

  7. John says:

    What metric would you suggest for a succesful marriage, if not divorce (i.e., the dissolution of that marriage)? And what metrics would you consider appropriate for the question of if children have been raised healthy and happy? Unless we can agree on terms (e.g., "desirable" – by whom? For how long? Why?), it is indeed unlikely that we can continue to converse sivily.The data is not irrelevant; the statement had been made that the Pa-Ma-Kid model was the "natural family unit", and I used examples from humans throughout history and across the globe to demonstrate that it was not. (It seems dubious to me that it is even the dominant form, given the ubiquity of other modes.) And that also touches on the question of "what creates healthy kids?" as this is something that changes throughout time (remember the days when you could spank children without fearing being accused of child abuse? Or when infilibration was used as a "cure" for masturbation?). If you are truly interested in learning about marriage and sexuality throughout the ages, perhaps your best bet is to take a course at your local state university [1]. As to this being a "try it and see" approach, it is not. It is a listing of observed behaviors in homo sapiens, all of which have led to healthy children by that culture's definition. It seems to me that I'm not the one who has decided on the preferred outcome.John[1] Sadly, I cannot recommend community colleges, as they all too often feature courses taught by those without training in the field (e.g., one used a weatherman to teach the geology course because they were both aspects of earth science).

  8. TedWest says:

    And here they say it never snows in Miami. John, when you said you were a scientist, I didn't realize you meant the social sciences.
    I asked you to pick one very narrow topic and instead I get nonsense in defense of nonsense. An no, I'm not willing to address the many errors and illogical assumptions, starting with your opening question and reaching its pinnacle with "sivily."
    But I will give you a hint, so please try to focus: of course divorce is indicative of an unsuccessful marriage. But the divorce "rate" has nothing to do with whether marriage is the most desirable institution for raising children.
    As for what I want, you might say I'm the consummate environmentalist – I never had kids, never wanted them, and I don't want anyone else to have them.
    I'm on record for calling on people to voluntarily end the human race by following my example And I don't make that request simply because I hate people or because we've messed up so badly, I want people to do it as a protest to God. Let's send him a message that we're mad as hell and not going to go along with his scam anymore!
    Second coming, my eye. Sure, go ahead, but we won't be here.

  9. John says:

    OK, let's follow the logic trail. You say that ;The divorce "rate" has nothing to do with whether marriage is the most desirable institution for raising childrenIf the marriage ends in divorce, then the "most desirable institution for raising children" has ended. Thus, a high divorce rate means that what you call the most desirable instutition has failed. After all, it is very hard to raise children in a marriage if the marriage does not exist.As for being a social scientist, I wouldn't bill myself as such. I've only taken enough courses to get a minor; I've never published in the field (other than the loosely affiliated field of educational psychology).And, since you seem to want to pick a topic, go ahead. Shall we work on your thesis that marriage is the most desirable institution for raising children? If so, please define marriage. And how we define "most desirable" By whom? On which metrics? Also, a few of the alternative definitions of marriage were given in an earlier note. Are these included or excluded in your definition of marriage? If excluded, why?As your wife (whom you have stated is a scientist) will verify, careful definition of the problem/question is central to being able to discuss it clearly. That is why I asked those questions at the start of my last message and why I repeat them here. This is not "snow"; it is an attempt to get you to define your terms.Please note that you are the one making the positive claim ("Marriage is the most desirable institution for raising children") so the burden of proof is on you, as is the responsibility for defining the terms. Again, ask your wife if you would like vrification of this. Alternatively, you could read Popper.JohnPS – I aree with your stance in re God. That's part of why I have chosen not to procreate, and why I fully intend to read her the riot act once I pass Chandrasekhar's other limit.

  10. TedWest says:

    John, you're demonstrating why it's impossible to have a discussion with liberals, not that you're one, of course. I'm just saying that should you ever desire to be, you could probably fit right in.
    But you've said enough and made it short enough that I'm willing to parse it, and before I do, I'm forced to ask, are you insane?
    "If the marriage ends in divorce, then the "most desirable institution for raising children" has ended."
    OK, you've taken a lot of courses, and we're all very happy for you, but none of them was a logic course, am I right? And if I'm wrong, I wish you'd run that by your logic prof.
    But uh… no it hasn't , once instance of it has for two people. It says noting about the viability of the institution. No-thing.
    "Thus, a high divorce rate means that what you call the most desirable instutition has failed."
    And if you show that to him, the boy'll just shoot himself. That again says nothing about the institution – only that, for whatever reason, individuals failed at it.
    But what's going through my mind as I write is, why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
    "After all, it is very hard to raise children in a marriage if the marriage does not exist"
    That at least merits a "Yeah, so?"
    "please define marriage."
    No, marriage is marriage. It doesn't need to be defined. If you feel it does, you shouldn't be doing this.
    "And how we define "most desirable"
    We're not going to do that either. "Most desirable" is determined by what is and what might make it better. If you can show there's a better alternative to marriage, not in some primitive society, but here and now, I'd be happy to entertain your line of reasoning.
    "By whom?"
    Again, nope. Marriage is not on trial. Thousands of years have demonstrated its viability, not "whom?"
    "a few of the alternative definitions of marriage were given… Are these included or excluded in your definition of marriage?"
    Again, marriage is marriage. your alternatives are excluded until such time as you can demonstrate they are a superior alternative to what we have.
    "If excluded, why?"
    Answered.
    "This is not "snow"; it is an attempt to get you to define your terms."
    Let me remind you that it was you who sought to broaden the scope of marriage, not I. Therefore, I didn't need to define what's commonly accepted. Unless you didn't know what you were doing from the start? And I thought I made it clear that your extraneous material added nothing but noise?
    "Please note that you are the one making the positive claim ("Marriage is the most desirable institution for raising children") so the burden of proof is on you,"
    And thats exactly how the game is played in liberal circles where this nonsense is accepted as logical argument. Please show me where I said that exact quote you've attributed to me?
    Because if you made up a quote and claim I said it, your troubles just mushroomed.
    Regardless, I believe you're confusing "most desirable" with "most desirable:"
    The former being the ultimate choice, while the latter is the best choice among alternatives for our time and society.
    And here's what's worse: I don't have to prove it is, you have to prove there's something else better.
    So best get started.

  11. John says:

    John, you're demonstrating why it's impossible to have a discussion
    with liberals, not that you're one, of course. I'm just saying that
    should you ever desire to be, you could probably fit right in.
    But you've said enough and made it short enough that I'm willing to
    parse it, and before I do, I'm forced to ask, are you insane?Ah, ad hominem arguments. Typically an indicator of an inability to refute thee argument. It reminds me of the law joke about pounding on tables.
    "If the marriage ends in divorce, then the "most desirable institution for raising children" has ended."
    OK, you've taken a lot of courses, and we're all very happy for you,
    but none of them was a logic course, am I right? And if I'm wrong, I
    wish you'd run that by your logic prof.
    But uh… no it hasn't , once instance of it has for two people. It
    says noting about the viability of the institution. No-thing.
    "Thus, a high divorce rate means that what you call the most desirable instutition has failed."
    And if you show that to him, the boy'll just shoot himself. That
    again says nothing about the institution – only that, for whatever
    reason, individuals failed at it. B if and only if A; Not A, therefore not B. This is a standard logical technique, known as proof of the countrapositive. (There is an out for you in this argument; finding it is left as an exercise for the student.)"please define marriage."No, marriage is marriage. It doesn't need to be defined. If you feel it does, you shouldn't be doing this.
    OK, good – then the plural marriages permitted under Muslim doctrine are in, as are the polyadnrous ones of Tibet and the other forms that are known to exist (including the gay marriage allowed by some sects of the Anglican/Episcopalian church). "And how we define "most desirable" We're not going to do that either. "Most desirable" is determined by
    what is and what might make it better. If you can show there's a better
    alternative to marriage, not in some primitive society, but here and
    now, I'd be happy to entertain your line of reasoning.Again, you fail to define your terms – you seem to be taking refuge in a weasling of what the meaning of "is" is. By most desirable do you mean longest lasting? Most conservative of money/wealth? Least likely to lead to child abuse?As for the Saudis and others who employ a definition of marriage differeent from yours being "primitive societies", I'd advise you to double-check your numbers, medicines, and other fundamental sciences before making that claim."By whom?" Again, nope. Marriage is not on trial. Thousands of years have demonstrated its viability, not "whom?"Ah, but it is. At least your definition of it is, as evidenced by the growth in the movement to "alternative marriages"."a few of the alternative definitions of marriage were given… Are these included or excluded in your definition of marriage?"Again, marriage is marriage. your alternatives are excluded until
    such time as you can demonstrate they are a superior alternative to
    what we have. Those groups would hold that your marriage definition is inferior to theirs. Why should we take your word over theirs?"If excluded, why?"Answered.Nope. Evaded. there is a difference."This is not "snow"; it is an attempt to get you to define your terms."Let me remind you that it was you who sought to broaden the scope of
    marriage, not I. Therefore, I didn't need to define what's commonly
    accepted. Unless you didn't know what you were doing from the start?
    And I thought I made it clear that your extraneous material added
    nothing but noise?I didn't broaden the scope of marriage – I pointed out that other groups use the term differently. And provided evidence (what you call "extraneous noise") to back up my claim. So far, all you have provided is a sense of umbrage.

    "Please note that you are the one making the positive claim
    ("Marriage is the most desirable institution for raising children") so
    the burden of proof is on you,"And thats exactly how the game is played in liberal circles where
    this nonsense is accepted as logical argument. Please show me where I
    said that exact quote you've attributed to me?Because if you made up a quote and claim I said it, your troubles just mushroomed.Not a quote; a rephrasing of your statements. If you disagree, you are welcome to phrase it how you wish. Nevertheless, the following is a quote from your posts:"And marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy
    family and society. Any other relationship either does not advance
    society or is destructive of it."Again, you are the one making the positive statement. You are the one who has to defend it.Regardless, I believe you're confusing "most desirable" with "most desirable:"The former being the ultimate choice, while the latter is the best choice among alternatives for our time and society.Er, most desirable = most desirable. Did you mean "most desirable available" or "currently most desirable"?And here's what's worse: I don't have to prove it is, you have to prove there's something else better.So best get started.No, I don't I merely have to demonstrate that the alternatives mentioned are at least as good as the one that you hold. In science, this is known as the null hypothesis. And to prove them, all you have to do is follow the links to all of that "extraneous noise" and read the information provided. Those alternatives have been tested and appear to work at least as well, as long as the metric selected isn't "a healthy child comes from a family with one father and one mother" (which is called arguing the conclusion in logic). If you go on the basis of infant mortality, number of children to reach maturity, or any other objective parameter, they do as well as the nuclear family model that is currently prevalent in the US.So, if yyou want to argue that the nuclear family is the single best method, you'd best get started on providing those defintions and collecting your evidence. Because right now, you are the one who is starting to sound like your putative liberal – all righteous indignation and no facts to back himself up.John

  12. TedWest says:

    John, what you characterized as an "ad hominem argument" is nothing of the kind. It was a conclusion based on empirical evidence.
    I have a long-standing policy of debating people if and only if they are intelligent, logical, and knowledgeable. You fulfill criteria A and 3, and you think your strongest point is b – or 2, as you'd call it.
    The other part of my policy is how I treat idiots and after this experience, those who are just wrong and continue to press their case – all insults, all the time.
    You have to show you have the ability to focus, and that you can comprehend, and frankly, you haven't demonstrated either.
    So, if you find my indicating that you'd fit into a liberal think tank to be insulting – good. But I'm still addressing you in a "sivilized" manner. because we haven't reached the "all…all" point yet
    But we're right on the edge after your latest stunt.
    So you've taken logic! Then you must be very ashamed of what you wrote that prompted my question.
    But I should say that I'm impressed with your knowledge, if not your command, of logic. So why can't you take if from the classroom to the real world? Here's why, I think:
    You wish to relegate the "marriage debate" to one of concept, and if it were only that, I might be compelled to say you make some valid points.
    But marriage (And if you still can't grasp how I "define" the term, that's your problem) is more than a concept it's an institution, and it's one that has stood the test of time. And no one can argue that it's deleterious to the raising of children, they can only argue that there are alternatives that -may- be as good or even better.
    But that's yours to prove.I do not have to demonstrate how something that is is better than something you propose, And I certainly don't even have to defend it against your speculation. Which is all you're doing.
    Pointing to examples from other times and places is not proof. In fact, that's your dilemma: it may be difficult or impossible to prove that some other system could work as well or better here without implementing it, and it might be irresponsible and even irrational to suggest doing that, since if you're wrong, the consequences are too horrible to contemplate.
    The proliferation of alternative marriages you've referred to represents another leap in logic, for they in no way invalidate traditional marriage, nor do they denigrate the institution. They could just be weeds.
    "No, I don't I merely have to demonstrate that the alternatives mentioned are at least as good as the one that you hold."
    OK, I might concede that, but it's all in how you define "demonstrate" and "as good as" unfortunately, it's not as simple as demanding that something worked somewhere.
    And of course, this could all be moot in a hundred years or tomorrow.
    "Those groups would hold that your marriage definition is inferior to theirs. Why should we take your word over theirs?"
    Irrelevant, immaterial and non-responsive.
    "Er, most desirable = most desirable"
    Just messin' with you.
    Now, If I understand you correctly, and after all this, is there any reason I should,, you had the audacity to fabricate a quote, attribute it to me – and get it wrong to boot? How incredibly liberal!
    And if that's not outrageous enough, what do you do next? Apologize? Mais non, liberals don't do that (again not saying you are one), But instead of apologizing, you follow with the even more outrageous suggestion that I'm welcome to rephrase your misattributed mischaracterization? Do you work for the New York Times?
    "if yyou want to argue that the nuclear family is the single best method"
    Now don't go puttin' words in my mouth. I don't have to do anything, the burden is on you to prove you got an "as good as," and since you can't just point…
    Best get started.
    Oh, and how do you define "nuclear?"

  13. John says:

    John, what you characterized as an "ad hominem argument" is
    nothing of the kind. It was a conclusion based on empirical evidence.

    What evidence?
    That I cite references and use the scientific process to organize my thoughts?
    Or that you have thus far been unable to refute the arguments?

    Calling someone
    insane in lieu of answering their arguments is a classic ad hominem and a sign
    of weakness or inability in the one using it; it typically leads others to
    dismiss all of the arguments that follow as weaker (which is another logical
    fallacy, BTW, but a very human one). In other words, by using it, you make yourself look like an idiot.. That you attempt to classify it as a
    legitimate rebuttal indicates either that you are incapable of replying in a
    substantive form or that you know far less about debate than you think.

    I have a long-standing policy of debating people if and only if they
    are intelligent, logical, and knowledgeable. You fulfill criteria A and 3, and
    you think your strongest point is b – or 2, as you'd call it.

    The other part of my policy is how I treat idiots and after this
    experience, those who are just wrong and continue to press their case – all
    insults, all the time.

    You have to show you have the ability to focus, and that you can
    comprehend, and frankly, you haven't demonstrated either.

    On the contrary; I
    can comprehend. I suspect that even you comprehend; you merely choose to
    obfuscate the issue by attempting to drag in irrelevancies – in other words, to
    answer arguments with insults. Your shift from cardinal to alphabetical
    ordering is an example of that.

    So, if you find my indicating that you'd fit into a liberal think tank
    to be insulting – good. But I'm still addressing you in a "sivilized"
    manner. because we haven't reached the "all…all" point yet

    Yes, I make
    typographical errors. You do as well (in that very sentence, as a
    matter of fact). If that is the extent of your ability to refute arguments,
    then perhaps you should just give up.

    But we're right on the edge after your latest stunt.

    So you've taken logic! Then you must be very ashamed of what you wrote
    that prompted my question.

    No, what I wrote
    is both clear and correct logic. Are you ashamed that you appear to have failed
    to understand it?

    But marriage (And if you still can't grasp how I "define" the
    term, that's your problem) is more than a concept it's an institution, and it's
    one that has stood the test of time. And no one can argue that it's deleterious
    to the raising of children, they can only argue that there are alternatives
    that -may- be as good or even better.

    You appear to
    define the term as the “one man, one woman” sort that became the legal standard
    under Roman rule. That this is not the only definition of marriage is both
    obvious and well demonstrated. The reason that you fail to understand this is neither obvious nor well demonstrated.

    And, yes, it can
    be argued that such a model is harmful to the raising of children especially
    when it is practiced as serial monogamy (which is common in the US; some would argue that it is the de facto norm).

    But that's yours to prove. I do not have to demonstrate how something
    that is is better than something you propose, And I certainly don't even have
    to defend it against your speculation. Which is all you're doing.

    If you wish to
    claim that it is the best, then damn right you do (that's what "best" means). Otherwise, you are merely
    demonstrating that soi disant conservatives are at least as blovious as
    liberals.

    As to my comments
    being speculation, they are backed up by facts gathered by anthropologists,
    ethnologists, and other scientists as evidenced by the citations and links. Your comments boil down to a continuous assertion that
    it can’t be true (cue Monty Python).

    Pointing to examples from other times and places is not proof. In fact,
    that's your dilemma: it may be difficult or impossible to prove that some other
    system could work as well or better here without implementing it, and it might
    be irresponsible and even irrational to suggest doing that, since if you're
    wrong, the consequences are too horrible to contemplate.

    So your argument
    boils down to “You can’t prove it because any attempt to prove it is too
    horrible to contemplate”? Ignoring the huge leaps of illogic in the “only the
    USA matters when discussing a global institution” part of your argument, there
    is another thing you should be aware of – this question has already been
    tested. Here in the USA. In modern times. Look at the literature on gay
    adoptions with stable, two partner families. Or for polygamy in the US.

    The consensus?
    That children from stable families do better than those from families with high
    divorce rates or other unsettling events, such as the death of one parent. And
    that the children from families with gay parents do just as well as those from
    families with straight parents.

    "No, I don't I merely have to demonstrate that the alternatives
    mentioned are at least as good as the one that you hold."

    OK, I might concede that, but it's all in how you define
    "demonstrate" and "as good as" unfortunately, it's not as
    simple as demanding that something worked somewhere.

    Which is why I
    have asked you to define the terms. If you define the terms and the
    alternatives fail, then they fail. If they pass, then they pass. That you have
    refused to define your terms is an indicator that you know that the nuclear
    family will not prove to be superior by any objective measure.

    "Those groups would hold that your marriage definition is inferior
    to theirs. Why should we take your word over theirs?"

    Irrelevant, immaterial and non-responsive.

    On the contrary –
    it is directly to the point. You keep using marriage as synonymous with one-man
    plus one-woman, when it isn’t, not even here in the modern USA. Other groups
    define it differently. That you view that as irrelevant indicates more about
    you than it does about them (or me).

    "Er, most desirable = most desirable"

    Just messin' with you.

    Ah, so when I make
    a typo, it is something to be derided, but when you make one, you are just
    playing around. Double-standard? Check!

    Now, If I understand you correctly, and after all this, is there
    any reason I should,, you had the audacity to fabricate a quote, attribute it
    to me – and get it wrong to boot? How incredibly liberal!

    You do not
    understand me. I did not “fabricate a quote”; I attempted to summarize your
    statements. It seems that placing them in quotation marks (to indicate that
    they were not my sentiments) confused you; perhaps italics would have been more
    obvious?

    And if that's not outrageous enough, what do you do next?
    Apologize? Mais non, liberals don't do that (again not saying you are one), But
    instead of apologizing, you follow with the even more outrageous suggestion
    that I'm welcome to rephrase your misattributed mischaracterization? Do you
    work for the New York Times?

    In attempting to
    summarize my perception of your views as stated here, it appears that I
    confused you. I do apologize for that; my goal is
    clarity. Which is why I asked you to state your views clearly – for example, by
    rephrasing my summary. This, in most circles, is known as common politeness.
    That you see it as an insult is surprising.

    Interestingly, you
    fail to respond to the direct quote from you that I did provide. Here it is
    again:

    "And marriage between a man and a woman
    is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other relationship
    either does not advance society or is destructive of it."

    I repeat that once again, you are the one making the positive
    statement. You are the one who
    has to defend it. If you can.

    "if you want to argue that the nuclear family is the single best
    method"

    Now don't go puttin' words in my mouth. I don't have to do anything,
    the burden is on you to prove you got an "as good as," and since you
    can't just point…

    Here we may have a
    parting of the ways. In the first place, I have tried very hard not to put
    words in your mouth, down to including a direct quote and apologizing for my (apparently
    unacceptable) summary of your statements. In the second, science requires only
    that I prove that there is no statistical difference under some agreed-on set
    of metrics (you know, those pesky things that I keep asking you to define so that you can’t claim I just picked them so
    that the alternatives would pass muster). In other words, to show that the
    alternatives are “as good as”. And I can just point:

    Amato, Paul R., Gay Ochiltree, 1987, Interviewing
    Children about Their Families: A Note on Data Quality, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
    Vol. 49, No. 3 (Aug., 1987), pp. 669-675Andrew J. Cherlin, 2004, The
    deinstitutionalization of American marriage, Journal
    of Marriage and Family 66 (4), 848–861. Downey, Douglas B., Brian Powell, 1993, Do
    Children in Single-Parent Households Fare Better Living with Same-Sex
    Parents?, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
    Vol. 55, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 55-71Kitson, Gay. C., and Leslie A. Morgan,
    1990, The Multiple Consequences of Divorce: A Decade Review, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
    Vol. 52, No. 4, Family Research in the 1980s: The Decade in Review (Nov.,
    1990), pp. 913-924Kurdek, L. A., and Schmitt, J. P., 1986,
    Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual
    cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships, J Pers
    Soc Psychol., 51(4):711-20.Patterson, Charlotte J., 1992, Children
    of Lesbian and Gay Parents, Child Development,
    Vol. 63, No. 5 (Oct., 1992), pp. 1025-1042Seltzer, Judith A., 2000, Families
    Formed Outside of Marriage, Journal of Marriage
    and Family 62 (4), 1247–1268.

    Please note that this in not a complete listing of the literature; merely a few of
    the articles that are more easily understood by the layperson.

    Oh, and how do you define "nuclear?"

    If you really don’t
    know what a nuclear family is, then perhaps there is no hope and we should
    simply let this discussion die.

    John

  14. John says:

    Well, this will teach me not to use Word as an editor… Believe it or not the previous post was properly formatted and appeared so – until I pressed the magic "Post" button. Here it is once more, corrected for clarity. My apologies to those bothered by the double-posting.

    John, what you
    characterized as an "ad hominem argument" is nothing of the kind. It
    was a conclusion based on empirical evidence.

    What evidence? That I cite
    references and use the scientific process to organize my thoughts? Or that you
    have thus far been unable to refute the arguments?

    Calling someone insane in lieu
    of answering their arguments is a classic ad hominem and a sign of weakness or
    inability in the one using it; it typically leads others to dismiss all of the
    arguments that follow as weaker (which is another logical fallacy, BTW, but a
    very human one). In other words, by using it, you make yourself look like an
    idiot.. That you attempt to classify it as a legitimate rebuttal indicates
    either that you are incapable of replying in a substantive form or that you
    know far less about debate than you think.

    I have a long-standing policy
    of debating people if and only if they are intelligent, logical, and
    knowledgeable. You fulfill criteria A and 3, and you think your strongest point
    is b – or 2, as you'd call it.The other part of my policy is
    how I treat idiots and after this experience, those who are just wrong and
    continue to press their case – all insults, all the time.You have to show you have the
    ability to focus, and that you can comprehend, and frankly, you haven't
    demonstrated either.

    On the contrary; I can
    comprehend. I suspect that even you comprehend; you merely choose to obfuscate
    the issue by attempting to drag in irrelevancies – in other words, to answer
    arguments with insults. Your shift from cardinal to alphabetical ordering is an
    example of that.

    So, if you find my indicating
    that you'd fit into a liberal think tank to be insulting – good. But I'm still
    addressing you in a "sivilized" manner. because we haven't reached
    the "all…all" point yet

    Yes, I make typographical
    errors. You do as well (in that very sentence, as a matter of fact). If that is
    the extent of your ability to refute arguments, then perhaps you should just
    give up.

    But we're right on the edge
    after your latest stunt.So you've taken logic! Then you
    must be very ashamed of what you wrote that prompted my question.

    No, what I wrote is both clear
    and correct logic. Are you ashamed that you appear to have failed to understand
    it?

    But marriage (And if you still
    can't grasp how I "define" the term, that's your problem) is more
    than a concept it's an institution, and it's one that has stood the test of
    time. And no one can argue that it's deleterious to the raising of children,
    they can only argue that there are alternatives that -may- be as good or even
    better.

    You appear to define the term
    as the “one man, one woman” sort that became the legal standard under Roman rule.
    That this is not the only definition of marriage is both obvious and well
    demonstrated. The reason that you fail to understand this is neither obvious
    nor well demonstrated.

    And, yes, it can be argued that
    such a model is harmful
    to the raising of children especially when it is practiced as serial
    monogamy (which is common
    in the US; some would argue that it is the de facto norm).

    But that's yours to prove. I do
    not have to demonstrate how something that is is better than something you
    propose, And I certainly don't even have to defend it against your speculation.
    Which is all you're doing.

    If you wish to claim that it is
    the best, then damn right you do (that's what "best" means).
    Otherwise, you are merely demonstrating that soi disant conservatives are at
    least as blovious as liberals.

    As to my comments being
    speculation, they are backed up by facts gathered by anthropologists,
    ethnologists, and other scientists as evidenced by the citations and links.
    Your comments boil down to a continuous assertion that it can’t be true (cue Monty Python).

    Pointing to examples from other
    times and places is not proof. In fact, that's your dilemma: it may be
    difficult or impossible to prove that some other system could work as well or
    better here without implementing it, and it might be irresponsible and even
    irrational to suggest doing that, since if you're wrong, the consequences are
    too horrible to contemplate.

    So your argument boils down to
    “You can’t prove it because any attempt to prove it is too horrible to
    contemplate”? Ignoring the huge leaps of illogic in the “only the USA matters
    when discussing a global institution” part of your argument, there is another
    thing you should be aware of – this question has already been tested. Here in
    the USA. In modern times. Look at the literature on gay adoptions with stable,
    two partner families. Or for polygamy in the US.

    The consensus? That children
    from stable families do better than those from families with high divorce rates
    or other unsettling events, such as the death of one parent. And that the
    children from families with gay parents do just as well as those from families
    with straight parents.

    "No, I don't I merely have
    to demonstrate that the alternatives mentioned are at least as good as the one
    that you hold."

    OK, I might concede that, but
    it's all in how you define "demonstrate" and "as good as"
    unfortunately, it's not as simple as demanding that something worked somewhere.

    Which is why I have asked you
    to define the terms. If you define the terms and the alternatives fail, then
    they fail. If they pass, then they pass. That you have refused to define your
    terms is an indicator that you know that the nuclear family will not prove to
    be superior by any objective measure.

    "Those groups would hold
    that your marriage definition is inferior to theirs. Why should we take your
    word over theirs?"Irrelevant, immaterial and
    non-responsive.

    On the contrary – it is
    directly to the point. You keep using marriage as synonymous with one-man plus
    one-woman, when it isn’t, not even here in the modern USA. Other groups define
    it differently. That you view that as irrelevant indicates more about you than
    it does about them (or me).

    "Er, most desirable = most
    desirable"Just messin' with you.

    Ah, so when I make a typo, it
    is something to be derided, but when you make one, you are just playing around.
    Double-standard? Check!

    Now, If I understand you
    correctly, and after all this, is there any reason I should,, you had the
    audacity to fabricate a quote, attribute it to me – and get it wrong to boot?
    How incredibly liberal!

    You do not understand me. I did
    not “fabricate a quote”; I attempted to summarize your statements. It seems
    that placing them in quotation marks (to indicate that they were not my
    sentiments) confused you; perhaps italics would have been more obvious?

    And if that's
    not outrageous enough, what do you do next? Apologize? Mais non,
    liberals don't do that (again not saying you are one), But instead of
    apologizing, you follow with the even more outrageous suggestion that I'm
    welcome to rephrase your misattributed mischaracterization? Do you work for the
    New York Times?

    In attempting to summarize my
    perception of your views as stated here, it appears that I confused you. I do
    apologize for that; my goal is clarity. Which is why I asked you to state your
    views clearly – for example, by rephrasing my summary. This, in most circles,
    is known as common politeness. That you see it as an insult is surprising.

    Interestingly, you fail to
    respond to the direct quote from you that I did provide. Here it is again:

    "And marriage between a
    man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other
    relationship either does not advance society or is destructive of it."

    I repeat that once again, you are
    the one making the positive statement. You are the one who has to defend it. If
    you can.

    "if you want to argue that
    the nuclear family is the single best method"

    Now don't go puttin' words in
    my mouth. I don't have to do anything, the burden is on you to prove you got an
    "as good as," and since you can't just point…

    Here we may have a parting of
    the ways. In the first place, I have tried very hard not to put words in your
    mouth, down to including a direct quote and apologizing for my (apparently
    unacceptable) summary of your statements. In the second, science requires only
    that I prove that there is no statistical difference under some agreed-on set
    of metrics (you know, those pesky things that I keep asking you to define so
    that you can’t claim I just picked them so that the alternatives would pass
    muster). In other words, to show that the alternatives are “as good as”. And I
    can just point:

    Amato, Paul R., Gay Ochiltree, 1987, Interviewing Children about
    Their Families: A Note on Data Quality, Journal of Marriage and the
    Family, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Aug., 1987), pp. 669-675Andrew J. Cherlin, 2004, The deinstitutionalization of American
    marriage, Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (4), 848–861. Downey, Douglas B., Brian Powell, 1993, Do Children in
    Single-Parent Households Fare Better Living with Same-Sex Parents?,
    Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 55-71Kitson, Gay. C., and Leslie A. Morgan, 1990, The Multiple
    Consequences of Divorce: A Decade Review, Journal of Marriage and the
    Family, Vol. 52, No. 4, Family Research in the 1980s: The Decade in Review
    (Nov., 1990), pp. 913-924Kurdek, L. A., and Schmitt, J. P., 1986, Relationship quality of
    partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and
    lesbian relationships, J Pers Soc Psychol., 51(4):711-20.Patterson, Charlotte J., 1992, Children of Lesbian and Gay
    Parents, Child Development, Vol. 63, No. 5 (Oct., 1992), pp. 1025-1042Seltzer, Judith A.,
    2000, Families Formed Outside of Marriage, Journal of Marriage and Family 62
    (4), 1247–1268.

    Please note that this in not a
    complete listing of the literature; merely a few of the articles that are more
    easily understood by the layperson.

    Oh, and how do you define
    "nuclear?"

    If you really don’t know what a
    nuclear family is, then perhaps there is no hope and we should simply let this
    discussion die.

    John

  15. TedWest says:

    John, I read a short bit of that and it's clear you're a loon – an intelligent loon, but a loon nonetheless. You continue to distort and misconstrue my comments, and you show little indication that you're capable of comprehending sentences as written or ideas as expressed – at least not consistently.
    Worse, despite the fact that you know well the terms and concepts, you seem incapable of logical argument.
    In an effort to get you to focus, I have asked you a hundred times to pick one small bit and we'll expand from there as much and as quickly as your comprehension allows. And completely lost on you is that despite your obfuscatory cloud of irrelevant verbiage, I've answered your central question.
    That you reject is is of no concern, since from the start, your position was that you wanted all forms of relationships to be considered valid marriage. you simply can't take that position and allow any arguments to the contrary.
    I, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to entertain reasonable and plausible arguments to expand the current definition, it's just that you've been incapable of providing any. Oh I know you think you have, and that's why this is on the verge of turning ugly.
    Your evidence is not evidence at all. I mean it may be evidence of something, just not what you want it to prove.
    So why don't you put your argument in the form of a syllogism – that might allow you to see the fallacy of it.
    And I'll say again:
    1) You cannot argue this only in concept
    B) I never said that traditional marriage it the best
    3) We haven't even gotten into how the implementation of your ideas might have a further deleterious affect on the institution of marriage and society as a whole.
    So rational people aren't willing to make wholesale changes and allowances simply because some idiot(s) think they have viable alternatives. At best you're a blind idealist, and at worst, you're a selfish, narcissistic fool.
    And in any case, I'm not going to indulge your debate by repetition any further, and I'm not going to be sivil from here forward, at least until and unless you can demonstrate even a rudimentary capability of being able to turn your book knowledge into an actual logical argument – and that further involves understanding when your "facts" don't support your conclusions and when they are simply irrelevant.
    But I will say that you may be the best example I've ever seen of the fact that intelligence does not guarantee that the product of it will be rational – or even comprehensible.

  16. John says:

    <SNIP! Obvious evidence that TedWest cannot refute the arguments> In an effort to get you to focus, I have asked you a hundred times to pick one small bit and we'll expand from there as much and as quickly as your comprehension allows. And completely lost on you is that despite your obfuscatory cloud of irrelevant verbiage, I've answered your central question.We appear to have selected one small bit. Here it is again, a direct quote from you:"And marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other relationship either does not advance society or is destructive of it."That you have not grasped this is surprising, as it was the central theme of the past four posts.That you reject is is of no concern, since from the start, your position was that you wanted all forms of relationships to be considered valid marriage. you simply can't take that position and allow any arguments to the contrary.You either misunderstand or misrepresent what I have said. All of those other forms of marriage are valid forms (i.e., legally permitted somewhere and held as socially normative); they are merely not legal forms in the whole of the current United States. I, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to entertain reasonable and plausible arguments to expand the current definition, it's just that you've been incapable of providing any. Oh I know you think you have, and that's why this is on the verge of turning ugly.On the contrary – several references have been provided. You choose to dismiss that evidence, but have not given any reason other than calling it "extraneous noise". And I'll say again: 1) You cannot argue this only in conceptI am not arguing only in concept. Those references at the end of the last post used real data taken from American families within the past 20 years. B) I never said that traditional marriage it the bestYes, you did. here's the quote again:"And marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other relationship either does not advance society or is destructive of it."Here's another one:"Again, marriage is marriage. your alternatives are excluded until such
    time as you can demonstrate they are a superior alternative to what we
    have. "And another:"For example, the fact that the divorce rate was higher at some prior
    time in no way invalidates the argument that traditional marriage is
    the most desirable form of relationship."You have said it. Now be a mensch and admit to it. 3) We haven't even gotten into how the implementation of your ideas might have a further deleterious affect on the institution of marriage and society as a whole.Hey – you are the one who wants to pick a small topic and stick with it. So let's just stick with "Any (relationship other than monogamous marriage) either does not advance society or is destructive of it." And in any case, I'm not going to indulge your debate by repetition any further, and I'm not going to be sivil from here forward, at least until and unless you can demonstrate even a rudimentary capability of being able to turn your book knowledge into an actual logical argument – and that further involves understanding when your "facts" don't support your conclusions and when they are simply irrelevant.If actual data gathered from families living in the United States in the past twenty years doesn't count as relevant facts about marriage, then what does? If examining the effects on children of the lifestyles of their parents is not relevant to this discussion, then what is? Or are you dismissing the research as irrelevant because it supports a conclusion that you find personally repugnant? On a side note, I count six ad hominem arguments – and not one actual refutation of either the data or the null hypothesis. Based on your statements thus far, "it seems to me that you have decided the outcome you
    want, but you've offered no hard evidence and what you have offered is
    incomplete at best."
    John

  17. TedWest says:

    B) I never said that traditional marriage it the bestYes, you did. here's the quote again:

    "And marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of a healthy family and society. Any other relationship either does not advance society or is destructive of it."
    ———————
    There you go again. "Best" is not in my quote. You think I infer it by eliminating all others, but this is a case where if you asked me to define "any other" I missed the request. With all of your superfluity, can you blame me? I mean, you say you offered "real data" at the end of your last post, but I never got that far because what you'd said before it was rubbish, but I mean that in the nicest sense – perfumed rubbish.
    My "all other forms…" was not about the forms you put forth, i.e. other societies, but about things more parochial.
    And look what you did yet again, you took quotes of mine that you think makes your point, but don't in the least, e.g:
    "For example, the fact that the divorce rate was higher at some prior time in no way invalidates the argument that traditional marriage is the most desirable form of relationship"
    The "…argument…most desirable…" is not mine. You have attributed it to me, apparently thinking that because I wrote it, I own it.
    This is the absolute last time I'm going to address you here in any way that approaches sivility (you may not be able to count the ad hominems) if you can't understand that it was you who brought up marriage and the idea that all forms should be valid.
    It is your responsibility to prove that, and not by examples from other societies and bygone eras. What worked for them is, at best, likely of marginal interest to us. It's your responsibility to prove that it applies.
    If I understand you, you're arguing that, say, gay marriage is fine because polygamy works for some Muslims.
    Oh, and my messin' with you wasn't a typo – it was conscious – to counter your running on.
    And my dwelling on your typo (if you say so) is because it conveys far more than you think.
    Besides, I like it!
    Now, best… get… started.

  18. John says:

    So you are unwilling to define your stance or to defend it, but will heap scorn upon anyone who disagrees or attempts to examine alternatives? You insist that your many typographical errors are "just messin' with ya" but those of others are serious errata? You get upset when others try to summarize your statements but are allowed to do so yourself? Sounds like what you might call classical "liberal loon" behavior. You aren't a mirror – you are what you claim to hate.John

  19. TedWest says:

    Claim to?
    Look, I was trying to give you every break, but when you understand nothing, and you can't even address the one opportunity I gave you to demonstrate that something you said was actually correct, you've forfeitted your last chance..
    Your book learning is a waste, and…
    Today you are a liberal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s