6/11/2013 9:31 PM
6/12/2013 8:20 AM
That's one crazy looking cat.
6/12/2013 8:24 AM
Here's what happened:

Tec said (paraphrasing): Homosexuality is not ok because it isn't good for evolution

I said: Lots of things aren't good for evolution -  straight couples choosing not to have kids and couples waiting until they are older are two examples. Just because something isn't good for evolution, doesn't mean it isn't acceptable.

bistiza said: murder doesn't affect evolution, it must be ok by your reasoning.
 
NO. That wasn't even remotely close to what you said or what I was saying. Nice try to twist things, but I'm not going to allow that to work.

HERE IS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID:
Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.

Your line of reasoning is that things (you provide the examples of "being gay" and "waiting to have kids") are okay because "it won't impact the human race as a whole".

I pointed out that murder and acts of terror are also two things that do not impact the human race as a whole, so by the line of reasoning you used, they are also okay.

If those things aren't okay by you, then you need to either amend your reasoning or admit it is flawed.  Stop dancing around the issue and address it - please pick one of those two and proceed.
6/12/2013 9:53 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
My point is that homosexuality is not a desirable trait with respect to advancing the human race through evolution.  It works against procreation, which is one part of the foundation of evolution.

Maybe you don't understand how evolution works (?). 

Did I really need to say that, you couldn't discern this yourself from my comments?
I was addressing Tec's point. Not commenting on every factor that makes something ok/not ok.
6/12/2013 10:16 AM
I was addressing Tec's point. Not commenting on every factor that makes something ok/not ok.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what you were addressing - the line of reasoning you used was flawed as I have pointed out.

Stop dancing around that and either change your line of reasoning or admit it is flawed and give up on it.
6/12/2013 10:42 AM
It actually does matter what I was addressing.
6/12/2013 1:03 PM
Your line of reasoning was that anything which "won't impact the human race as a whole" is okay. What topic you were referring to at the time doesn't matter, because that same line of reasoning can be (and WAS) applied to another topic.

So pick one: You think murder and acts of terror are okay OR you admit your reasoning was flawed and you'd like to amend it.



6/12/2013 1:39 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/12/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Your line of reasoning was that anything which "won't impact the human race as a whole" is okay. What topic you were referring to at the time doesn't matter, because that same line of reasoning can be (and WAS) applied to another topic.

So pick one: You think murder and acts of terror are okay OR you admit your reasoning was flawed and you'd like to amend it.



Nope. My argument is that homosexuality is ok. Tec mentioned that people might not agree because of evolution. My line of reasoning is that that's an extremely weak argument considering the fact that other things (older parents and couples choosing not to have kids) are equally as harmful to evolution and still considered ok. Homosexuality isn't going to impact the future of the human race.

6/12/2013 1:40 PM
And I never said "anything" that doesn't impact the human race as a whole is ok.
6/12/2013 1:49 PM
Nope. My argument is that homosexuality is ok.

And your REASONING was because "it won't impact the human race as a whole", which was then applied to another situation.

That leaves you two choices: You think murder and acts of terror are okay OR you admit your reasoning was flawed and you'd like to amend it.
My line of reasoning is that that's an extremely weak argument considering the fact that other things (older parents and couples choosing not to have kids) are equally as harmful to evolution and still considered ok.
That's a completely separate line of reasoning from the one I quoted you on.

So are you telling me you want to entirely remove your statement about how it "won't impact the human race as a whole"?
And I never said "anything" that doesn't impact the human race as a whole is ok.
Your line of reasoning was that something is okay as long as it doesn't impact the human race as a whole. Your examples were homosexuality and people having children over the age of 30, but the LINE OF REASONING itself can be applied to other circumstances, as I showed you.

You can't use a line of reasoning and demand that it be isolated only to the point you intend to make no matter how flawed it may be.

6/12/2013 2:04 PM
But I never said that something was ok only because it doesn't affect humans as a whole. No one would say that because it isn't true. There are other considerations. I was addressing Tec's specific argument.

I will be sure to add a disclaimer to every to every single post from now on.
6/12/2013 2:22 PM
But I never said that something was ok only because it doesn't affect humans as a whole.
 
Here's the direct quote from you:
Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.

No one would say that because it isn't true.
Apparently you're "no one" because you DID say it, and I just quoted you again directly above this.

Since you're saying it isn't true, am I to take that as you amending your line of reasoning? Or are you going to continue dancing around in the hopes that you can somehow escape the snare you've hopelessly entangled yourself in?

Honestly, just stop struggling, admit you need to amend your reasoning, and it'll be an easy climb out of that netting.
I was addressing Tec's specific argument.
With a line of reasoning that was tremendously flawed.
I will be sure to add a disclaimer to every to every single post from now on.
Or you could just admit your reasoning was flawed and attempt to fix it. Be careful - you seem to continually have the problem of presenting faulty reasoning and tripping over yourself trying to correct it without admitting that's what you're doing.





6/12/2013 2:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
There are lots of reasons why people may personally decide that homosexuality is wrong.  The reason I provided is just one of them.

And I'd really like to see you expound on your claim that people who wait until their 30's to have kids is somehow a problem.
Waiting until you are past 30 to have kids increases the rate of birth defects. If everyone waited until they were over 30 to have kids, the evolution of the human race would suffer.

Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.
Here is the full quote. I was responding to a specific argument. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Just because something doesn't have an impact on the human race doesn't mean it's ok. There are other considerations.
6/12/2013 2:40 PM
So we can now respond to specific arguments and you won't try to expand it to another situation?

186 pages in and I see something new come around.
6/12/2013 2:45 PM
I was responding to a specific argument. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.
I understood perfectly. You used flawed reasoning while responding to a specific argument, and you're angry because you didn't mean for that to happen and only wanted the reasoning to be applied to your examples rather than to other things, even though that's not how it works in the real world.
Just because something doesn't have an impact on the human race doesn't mean it's ok. There are other considerations.

So now you're admitting your reasoning was flawed. You do realize, of course, that means your whole argument was flawed since it was based on that flawed reasoning.
So we can now respond to specific arguments and you won't try to expand it to another situation?

Anyone can respond to specific arguments at any time. Just don't try to warp reality by demanding your line of reasoning can only be applied to the specific circumstance you want to use it for.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.