–

Ignorance, our most costly commodity – paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh.

AniMEL said:
I have never liked the idea of schools being politicized. Politics and other personal beliefs should be left to the parents to guide.

Yup, AniMEL – I think whatever one’s postion on issues touching on homosexuality, you’ve really hit a common thread thread there!

Teach kids to read, to write and do those dang ‘rithmaticks. What they do as adults with what they have learned at home and school is up to them.

Definitely a two thumbs on your point there!

On October 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am, Omu said:

I apologise for going to your level (you being an obvious homophobic, hateful, bigoted loser) but it’s the quickest way to make my point.

Other than being Queen La-queef-uh, what is your point Ubu? That you’ll slur anyone who disagrees with you?

Go put up your pumpkin .

Purplepeep:

Just because you can find a website or textbook that parrots your incorrect definition does not make it correct.

Sorry, ZA, but I know whereof I speak when it comes to what is termed “logical fallacies”. I’m a relatively seasoned debater – to toot my own horn a bit here – and this in particular is not debatable. My challenge to you would be to query those whom you respect who are knowledgable in the area if you believe the usage is incorrect ( which is certainly your right).

But the fact is that if check online, which is something we can verify individualy/objectively, you will find that it is so. I believe where you are confused is in pure Latin translation. What you don’t understand is how the phraseology is used within the context of debate.

For example, if you were to go by only the literal term “agoraphobia” (Greek) you would assume it is is limited to the “fear of the marketplace”. However, in real practice the meaning is more comprehensive, e.g. a person is terrified of leaving his/her apartmnt.

As I said, you are most welcome to review any pubilcation, online or off. But by way of a beginner’s tutorial you’ll find this to serve as an example:

“Subjectivist Fallacies:
Appeal to Emotion
(Argumentum ad Populum)
This fallacy is the attempt to persuade someone of a conclusion by an appeal to emotion instead of evidence. A person who commits this fallacy is hoping that his listeners will adopt a belief on the basis of a feeling he has instilled in them–outrage, hostility, fear, pity, guilt, or whatever.
More often, however, the appeal is less direct. It may take the form of rhetorical language that is heavily laden with emotive connotations, as in propaganda and other sorts of incendiary political speech.

The fallacy may also take the form of visual images that have a strong emotional impact.”

Tutorial- The Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion

You’ve offered, at best, what are usually called “Urban Legends” as you tried to make a case for same-sex marriage. Again, it’s pure emotionalism, but nothing solid in real llife. It’s to be rejected out of hand by logical persons just as a biblical argument on the issue is to be rejected out of hand by non-Jews and non-Christians.

As far as your violent friends whom I suppose like knocking people’s teeth out, they sound like particularly nasty people.

Again with the insults, ZA? You honestly believe African-American males welcome being equated with those who chooae involvement in homosexual acts? If so, ZA, I sincerely hope you avoid the real world world as much as possible.

Trollman, I have to disagree with you. Marriage wasn’t a legally recognized social institution until John Calvin helped to start making it so. I’m assuming everyone here knows who Calvin is. He did so through the church, was in his day was a nationalized organization. Being recognized by the church then meant being recognized by the government.

Marriage existed long before there even was a church. In the ancient, pre-Christian world, there already existed legal laws concerning marriage and divorce. That is because marriage is primarily a social institution. Religions often have something to say about it precisely because it is an integral part of human society.

You are an ass.

Actually, I am an elephant – a Republican, not a Democrat.

zeroangel said:

I don’t know how many times I have repeated on this website that I attend church with my wife and have no problem if she wants to raise kids in her faith. Deep-seated antagonism toward religion, indeed!

That doesn’t refute my point. You have repeatedly shown a strong disdain toward religion, with some of your comments toward the Bible, and so forth. Given that you’ve stated your wife’s church teaches that non-Christians can go to heaven, and your, shall we say, “strong distaste” for the Biblical doctrine that only Christians go to heaven, I think that speaks volumes.

zeroangel said:

Furthermore, I used the phrase “handicapped” in quotes very purposely. I only meant it in the sense that homosexuals would have a hard time reproducing. You very likely understand that and are just trying to undermine me.

From your use of it, I figured you meant they were “handicapped” in the sense that something was dysfunctional in them.

zeroangel said:

It is you that has a deep-seated antagonism toward atheists.

No, that is not true. Furthermore, I haven’t called you any nasty names. Hating people isn’t my style or my calling.

zeroangel said:

Honestly, I really have better things to do. Have the last word, fellas.

We’ve butted heads many times over many topics. If my memory serves me correctly, you’ve insisted on getting in the last word every single time. It takes a certain level of maturity and confidence in one’s position to be able to walk away.

I have never liked the idea of schools being politicized. Politics and other personal beliefs should be left to the parents to guide.