Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

You're assuming that it's intolerance itself that people object to and not how the intolerance takes form.

No, he's recognizing that people who say they have problems with intolerance itself are really objecting to intolerance of only some very specific things, contrary to what those people might claim.

You're pretty much committing a False Equivocation fallacy

You're citing a fallacy that not only doesn't describe what he's doing...it doesn't even describe what you're accusing him of doing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

"Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

If you're going to misrepresent someone's statement solely for the purpose of inflating your own ego by quoting stuff you learned in debate class, at least misrepresent their statements in a way that matches the fallacy you're incorrectly attributing to them.

[Scelly9]

PTW

[Glowcat]

...

No, I'm sorry, but from the context he was playing that ol' canard. The usage of "feel-good discrimination" pretty much seals my interpretation there. If he wanted to argue against people using intolerance for that particular usage then he should've been more clear and it would be semantic bickering in any case.

[scriver]

A man and a woman living together, unmarried, also do not qualify for these things.

Trying to interpret the favoritism towards marriage as some sort of stamp of approval of heterosexuality and disapproval of homosexuality is completely missing the point.

Dear lord. There cannot be enough facepalm over this.

You're actually saying an unmarried man and a woman don't qualify for marriage bonuses here. And think this, choosing not take benefit of marriage, is the same as not being allowed to marry in the first place.

Generally speaking, I think it's unhealthy for two people to believe that they need a third party to approve of what they willingly choose to do with each other.

At face value, I would think that even the people who disagree with me in this thread would agree with that statement. That's kind of your whole point, isn't it? That it's not reasonable for somebody not even involved to decide what two people of their own free will choose to do with each other? Then why do you feel the need to seek government approval of your relationships

Yeah, people, being secure in yourself means you shouldn't care that society discriminates against you! Watch how I try to redefine the argument to be about how gay people are just weaklings who desperately seek approval, and try to make anyone opposing me feel they're just being insecure and should just grow some balls by proxy.

[Xantalos]

Oh dear LordBucket and Scriver in the same thread.
I'm gone!

[LordBucket]

Oh dear LordBucket and Scriver in the same thread.
I'm gone!

Unfortunately his post is dripping with so much sarcasm that I'm not entirely certain what his actual point was. Or if he had one.

[Xantalos]

Oh dear LordBucket and Scriver in the same thread.
I'm gone!

Unfortunately his post is dripping with so much sarcasm that I'm not entirely certain what his actual point was. Or if he had one.

The point being that you two tend to react like francium and fluorine. 

[DrPoo]

Oh dear LordBucket and Scriver in the same thread.
I'm gone!

Yeah.. This is going down the shitter.
You guys, we are discussing religion. Not each others ability to discuss religion.
Im locking this and consulting the great one about how to manage this.

[Toady One]

I'll just leave it locked.