["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, I'm willing to argue and support my assertions. You claimed (post 51) that you are not willing to bacck up what you actually claim.

Then have at it.... support your assertion that an orphanage is a worse environment to grow up in than a homosexual couple's household.

"I reasoned through it at the time and made a conclusion the same as the psychologists did and I've stuck with it." - post 51

You simply concluded rather than finding out. You have already admitted that it's not stated, and that you lacked the knowledge to properly interprete. If you have a logic process that establishes your conclusion as true (condiering you did't read the study), you be sure to share that.

I did read the study, and because I lacked the knowledge to properly interpret does not automatically negate the conclusion. I made the conclusion and have since not been shown any evidence to its contrary. So, am I to just make up another conclusion? Wouldn't that be even more ignorant? I'm just going with the best I've got. Show me something better, and I'll consider it. However, you say you're willing to support your assertions--- here's your chance. Do it.

[JerryLove]

Then have at it.... support your assertion that an orphanage is a worse environment to grow up in than a homosexual couple's household.

http://ca.lwv.org/jjds/chap6.html
30-40% of homeless young people had been in foster care. That percentage is believed to have risen.
33% have done something illegal to get food
Of children involved in niglect cases: by 16 49% have been arrested.

Got anything matching that for homosexual parents?

Post #49

I did read the study, and because I lacked the knowledge to properly interpret does not automatically negate the conclusion.

Having no expertise and an unwillingness to support your conclusion as well as an inability to answer factual questions pertinent to the conclusion makes your assertion of them ignoreable.

I made the conclusion and have since not been shown any evidence to its contrary. So, am I to just make up another conclusion? Wouldn't that be even more ignorant?

I didn't conclude one, I simply cast doubt on yours. I don't have data to hetero vs homosexual parentage as you've been unable to provide any.

I'm just going with the best I've got. Show me something better, and I'll consider it.

Show me anything to begin with. I did not claim that there was no differene between hetero and homsexual couples, I pointed out your complete lack of support for that claim and the fact that those are not the realistic alternatives.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Actually, I would probably agree with you about the conservative thing.

Agree with the study. I'm skeptical of it myself, which is why I brought it up.

And there was no "gay parents" study. It was a study about developmental environment as pertaining to parenting.

Sorry.

Something could shake me from it, but it's going to take a little more than Jerry's fallable reasoning. I normally don't agree with him ideologically anyways, and that's the main support he's used. He gave some statistics about orphanages, but nothing about kids growing up with gay parents. I really don't care to do extensive research on every trivial political opinion I have, so if you want to change my mind, do the research and let me know. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Why hold to an opinion at all if it's on shakey ground? If the extent of my knowledge on something were the results of a single, uncorroborated study, I'd prefer to remain undecided. (By the way, I have a feeling gay couples and orphan children would not consider this a trivial issue.)

Well, I'm for arbitrary discrimination. There are no "wrong" types of discrimination, just different perspectives on a person's use of it. I'm sure you use discrimination in ways I would disapprove of and vice versa.

In the context of hiring someone for a job in which race is completely irrelevent, I would certainly consider it wrong (in an objective sense) to discriminate on the basis of race. How could it possibly not be?

My thing is that you lefty's are wrongfully denigrating valid methods of discrimination and claiming the high road while you're at it.

Example?

And if you've ever been an effective leader, you know what I mean by that. When it comes down to business, you shouldn't always have to give a qualified person a job. You shouldn't always turn down an unqualified person.

Since I've never been a leader and obviously don't know what you mean, could you explain?

Either way, the ability for a manager or organization to arbitrarily discriminate makes their own situation better because they actively choose every variable's value instead of the government giving regulations about to whom they can deny acceptance.

...at the expense of those looking for employment who happen to be in a minority group. How does it benefit an employer to refuse to hire a black guy as a chef for his restaurant simply because he doesn't like black people, and how does that benefit weigh up against the harm to black chefs looking for employment?

Alright, smartass... believe whatever you want on the internet. I'm a little more skeptical of what people say.

But you'll take a politician's word for it? Come on, now.

I've never seen the internet postings of an ordinary Venezuelan citizen, and I would be skeptical of you saying you have. What verification do you have that the person is a Venezuelan?

I have little reason to believe one would lie about their own nationality.

If verified, what makes the person unbiased?

I don't doubt that most Venezuelans are indeed biased toward wanting to choose their own leadership and not be invaded for electing someone with different interests than the President of the U.S.

And if unbiased, what makes the person sane?

It would be, statistically speaking, very improbable (the percentage of Venezuelans who are "insane" [which would need to be better defined], versus the percentage of Venezuelans with internet access). I don't know the exact figures, nor do I know the way to convert them into a single figure, but I can make a guess that it would be well under 50%.

Do you know this Venezuelan? Have you been to Venezuela? It's not that you CANT know, it's that I'm very skeptical of you knowing. I'm not just going to take it for granted that you are right because you tell me you read some crap on the internet.

So here's the question: why are you so skeptical of things on the internet (beyond the few internet posts—which I can cite if you really want—there's this Wikipedia article which seems to tell a pretty balanced story, and whose neutrality has apparently not been contested by Wikipedia members), but so uncritical of the claims of the administration of this country? How do you know they're telling the truth, how do you know they aren't biased, how do you know they don't have ulterior motives, etc.

You should note that Jerry didn't "question" the government, but rather accused it.

It was me who first brought it up, not Jerry, and I made no accusation, I merely called into question the truthfulness of Condoleeza Rice calling Chavez a "threat to democracy."

And that's okay, but I feel it's kind of silly to think that he knows more about what's going on than the administration.

I don't think I know more than the administration, I just have reason to be strongly skeptical that they're telling the truth about what they know.

Honestly, you can sit around and freak out about what's going on in Washington, but it's not going to do anybody any good.

Sure it can. It is in the best interests of politicians to have reasonably good approval ratings. The more people openly disapprove of particular policies or actions by the administration, the worse it is for them, and the more likely they are to compromise or change the unpopular policies. Furthermore, the more we who do disapprove do so openly and with good, persuasive reasoning, the more other people may be inspired to disapprove as well.

This is what I don't understand about you guys-- you polarize everything I say and make it out to be the complete opposite of what you believe.

I wasn't intentionally strawmanning you, I was taking your apparent line of reasoning to its conclusion to demonstrate the flaws in your argument. I apologize if I misinterpreted you or failed to represent all the subtle nuances of your actual position, but the bottom line is that your core reasoning is ridiculous if you're saying it's stupid to be skeptical of what the government says because they know more than me.

All I really said was "you could be wrong because there are others that certainly know more than you".

Under the assumption that these others are telling the truth about what they know. (By the way, it's sort of useless to say "you could be wrong," because I don't think anyone here is claiming omniscience—the practical effect of your statement earlier is that you're criticizing people for suggesting that the government is likely not telling the truth.)

[Danny]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I did read the study, and because I lacked the knowledge to properly interpret does not automatically negate the conclusion.

Of course not—but it should reasonably make you skeptical.

I made the conclusion and have since not been shown any evidence to its contrary.

I've come to the conclusion, with no evidence, that you're evil and God wishes me to purge you from the earth. Please show me evidence to the contrary, and I won't kill you. (See why it's a bad idea [not to mention nonsensical] to randomly pick a belief and await disproof before you abandon it? Typically you should require good evidence before you make a conclusion in the first place—or do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?)

So, am I to just make up another conclusion? Wouldn't that be even more ignorant?

It would be equally ignorant. Why is undecidedness not an option? Must you have an opinion about everything? What is your opinion on Yugoslavian animal cruelty laws?

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

http://ca.lwv.org/jjds/chap6.html
30-40% of homeless young people had been in foster care. That percentage is believed to have risen.
33% have done something illegal to get food
Of children involved in niglect cases: by 16 49% have been arrested.

Got anything matching that for homosexual parents?

Post #49

And I told you I don't. Do you? You're the one trying to convince me, if I recall correctly.

Having no expertise and an unwillingness to support your conclusion as well as an inability to answer factual questions pertinent to the conclusion makes your assertion of them ignoreable.

Then ignore it...that's all you have to do.

I didn't conclude one, I simply cast doubt on yours. I don't have data to hetero vs homosexual parentage as you've been unable to provide any.

You did not "simply cast doubt". You challenged it.

Show me anything to begin with. I did not claim that there was no differene between hetero and homsexual couples, I pointed out your complete lack of support for that claim and the fact that those are not the realistic alternatives.

And you've not provided any realistic alternatives for my belief. You've shown me how growing up in orphanages leads to crime, nothing more.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Danny

Agree with the study. I'm skeptical of it myself, which is why I brought it up.

Cool.

Why hold to an opinion at all if it's on shakey ground? If the extent of my knowledge on something were the results of a single, uncorroborated study, I'd prefer to remain undecided. (By the way, I have a feeling gay couples and orphan children would not consider this a trivial issue.)

It is most certainly a trivial political issue in that it effects a minute portion of 380 million people. I hold the opinion because it is a front in the culture war that goes against my side. Why do you have an opinion? Why have an opinion about anything if you don't know the absolute truth involved with it? Oh yeah, because you've been confronted with a problem and given limited information. You could erase it from your memory, perhaps, but I'm not that braindead myself. Every time I'm confronted with a problem, I don't go do all the research or experimentation necessary to find the absolute truth. If you do, and think you've found it, then I'm sorry but you're just wrong. What we know today will be proven wrong in the future-- it is a historical fact-- one of the few tidbits that we can really be sure of.

In the context of hiring someone for a job in which race is completely irrelevent, I would certainly consider it wrong (in an objective sense) to discriminate on the basis of race. How could it possibly not be?

If you are not objective. I've somewhat come to the conclusion that you cannot really be objective, and the more you try, the more biased you really become. I'm not saying people SHOULD discriminate on the basis of race, but I don't think it should be illegal. Similarly, I don't think any form of discrimination should be illegal. You said yourself you don't like the idea of Big Brother, Father Knows Best governments telling you how to make your own judgements. I don't like it either.

Example?

This discussion. I know the attitude of people against discrimination-- you all have the same basic rhetoric, and that is your advantage-- the rhetoric sounds good. It sounds like it is moral superiority because it calls for benevolent action that goes against inner feelings of distaste. However, aiming beyond morality you see that being immoral has its advantages from time to time, so long as you don't fall too depraved for it to be advantageous. And it's not to say that you should discriminate based on color, or sexual orientation, but you should be aware of what those qualities mean. Color is related to culture, and thence to many other qualities about a person. Sexual orientation says a lot about a person's character and mental process. See what I mean? It may not have a good moral tone to it, but survival and success does not necessarily require that particular morality.

Since I've never been a leader and obviously don't know what you mean, could you explain?

An unqualified person could be made qualified, given they have other qualities the manager deems necessary for achievement. A qualified person could become unqualified over time, or may not possess potential for improvement. Sometimes giving a qualified person a promotion causes them to think they've "made it far enough" and become delinquint in their position. For a manager, this is trouble.

...at the expense of those looking for employment who happen to be in a minority group. How does it benefit an employer to refuse to hire a black guy as a chef for his restaurant simply because he doesn't like black people, and how does that benefit weigh up against the harm to black chefs looking for employment?

And you put an ominous, politically defined group of people ahead of managers that provide to you goods depending on how much it costs him/her to make them? I'll tell you how it helps that manager-- if that manager doesn't like black people, how do you think he'll treat black employees? Not very good, I suspect. The work environment would be torurous for everyone involved. It could recede to a point to where he couldn't discriminate against mentally retarded people and his business could go down the drain and then the net employment effect is -1 (the manager lost his job, no one gained a job).

But you'll take a politician's word for it? Come on, now.

I'll take it over yours. Besides, you don't have to believe the politician, but when you assert that something else is true, you really have no leverage. The politicians have track records. I know almost nothing about you.

I have little reason to believe one would lie about their own nationality.

Why wouldn't they? Not even for political reasons? Not even because they are crazy? Because it's the internet, a haven of anonymity where people assume identities not their own ALL THE TIME?

I don't doubt that most Venezuelans are indeed biased toward wanting to choose their own leadership and not be invaded for electing someone with different interests than the President of the U.S.

Surely, they would. And you believe everything biased people say?

It would be, statistically speaking, very improbable (the percentage of Venezuelans who are "insane" [which would need to be better defined], versus the percentage of Venezuelans with internet access). I don't know the exact figures, nor do I know the way to convert them into a single figure, but I can make a guess that it would be well under 50%.

Okay, instead of "insane" we'll use "untrustworthy" or "someone willing to lie needlessly, or even to fulfill a particular end".

So here's the question: why are you so skeptical of things on the internet (beyond the few internet posts—which I can cite if you really want—there's this Wikipedia article which seems to tell a pretty balanced story, and whose neutrality has apparently not been contested by Wikipedia members), but so uncritical of the claims of the administration of this country? How do you know they're telling the truth, how do you know they aren't biased, how do you know they don't have ulterior motives, etc.

It's not that I'm uncritical of the government's claims, but I'm simply more critical of yours. And further, the difficulty lies not in being skeptical, but in choosing what else to rely on.

It was me who first brought it up, not Jerry, and I made no accusation, I merely called into question the truthfulness of Condoleeza Rice calling Chavez a "threat to democracy."

My apologies.

I don't think I know more than the administration, I just have reason to be strongly skeptical that they're telling the truth about what they know.

Ok, so here's where we are-- We don't know more than the administration. We don't think they are necessarily truthful.

Who is truthful, and why would they be? You may want to check your optimism in people not in the government. They are liars, too, quite often.

Sure it can. It is in the best interests of politicians to have reasonably good approval ratings. The more people openly disapprove of particular policies or actions by the administration, the worse it is for them, and the more likely they are to compromise or change the unpopular policies. Furthermore, the more we who do disapprove do so openly and with good, persuasive reasoning, the more other people may be inspired to disapprove as well.

Then I would encourage more persuasive reasoning for you guys. The fact is that most people don't care. Even if the government is lying about the threat to democracy, they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the good of the country. However, you could contest that with "the administration is not really 'for' America, and possibly against it". I don't think you'd get a lot of followers that way, though. Sounds loony.

I wasn't intentionally strawmanning you, I was taking your apparent line of reasoning to its conclusion to demonstrate the flaws in your argument. I apologize if I misinterpreted you or failed to represent all the subtle nuances of your actual position, but the bottom line is that your core reasoning is ridiculous if you're saying it's stupid to be skeptical of what the government says because they know more than me.

I'm not saying it's stupid, but I don't think it's wise. Skepticism is fine, but you gotta understand that it's their country, too. They're not going to dick us over, unless you're working up some ridiculous conspiracy theory. And if you have a problem with it, that's fine, but chances are, they are right (pragmatically speaking) and you are wrong. The government should not be a moral machine anyways, right? Then all that is left is the practicality of it. The executive branch has been perfecting for over 200 years the ability to achieve goals practically. You could say "but Bush is an idiot and doesn't know what's best" and I could counter with "everyone in the cabinet is more effective than you" and be fairly confident that I am correct, because they didn't make it to the high executive branch by talking a bunch of crap and not getting anything done. And if they are more effective, they're solving problems for our country (assuming they are not conspiring against our country) quite effectively. THAT is the conclusion. Not necessarily that you should blindly support everything they say.

Under the assumption that these others are telling the truth about what they know. (By the way, it's sort of useless to say "you could be wrong," because I don't think anyone here is claiming omniscience—the practical effect of your statement earlier is that you're criticizing people for suggesting that the government is likely not telling the truth.)

The point is that they know what they're doing, and if they don't tell you the entire truth, they're doing so because they need to. It's like the leader thing-- you don't need to tell all your followers every little thing about what you're doing and why you're doing it. It's a game between the leader and the led. You can't be direct about everything and get the reaction you need to achieve the goal in mind.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Danny

Of course not—but it should reasonably make you skeptical.

And it does, but I've not been reasonably shown to believe something else. And what I believe now still makes sense to me.

I've come to the conclusion, with no evidence, that you're evil and God wishes me to purge you from the earth. Please show me evidence to the contrary, and I won't kill you. (See why it's a bad idea [not to mention nonsensical] to randomly pick a belief and await disproof before you abandon it? Typically you should require good evidence before you make a conclusion in the first place—or do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?)

Straw-man-- I didn't randomly pick a belief. And if you really believe I'm evil and God wishes you to purge me, come on over. You could always try-- I promise I won't kill you, instead. I'll show some mercy on your reckless soul.

It would be equally ignorant. Why is undecidedness not an option? Must you have an opinion about everything? What is your opinion on Yugoslavian animal cruelty laws?

Undecidedness is not an option because I've been confronted with the argument in the past, shown evidence for both sides, and made a conclusion. Sorry I don't know EVERYTHING about it. I never claimed to. Your analogy, with the animal cruelty thing-- laughable. I think it would be more ignorant to make up a conclusion not based on anything but my own imagination rather than hold an incompletely reaffirmed belief in something that actually happened.

[JerryLove]

And I told you I don't. Do you? You're the one trying to convince me, if I recall correctly.

You are the one who claims to have read the unnammed study on the results of being raised by homosexual couples. What are the statistics?

Then ignore it...that's all you have to do.

I am ignoring your conclusion

You did not "simply cast doubt". You challenged it.

The difference being what?

And you've not provided any realistic alternatives for my belief. You've shown me how growing up in orphanages leads to crime, nothing more.

The alternative is that homosexual couples are better homes than orphanages or foster care and that it's unsupported to call them worse than single-parents or even heterosexual couples.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are the one who claims to have read the unnammed study on the results of being raised by homosexual couples. What are the statistics?

And I told you that you could take it or leave it-- I don't have access to it anymore, and I really don't care to do extensive research to show you something that isn't going to change your mind anyways.

I am ignoring your conclusion

No, you are challenging it.

[/quote]The difference being what?[/quote]

You're asking me to prove it to you, casting doubt seems a little more passive.

The alternative is that homosexual couples are better homes than orphanages or foster care and that it's unsupported to call them worse than single-parents or even heterosexual couples.

Well, it is thusfar equally unsupported to call them BETTER.

[JerryLove]

And I told you that you could take it or leave it-- I don't have access to it anymore, and I really don't care to do extensive research to show you something that isn't going to change your mind anyways.

If your belief that I don't change my mind helps you sleep better at night helps you, go for it.

I've supported my case with actual statistics; you've been unable to. You have no argument, simply assertions.

You're asking me to prove it to you, casting doubt seems a little more passive.

I think you are splitting irrellevent hairs. You've made a claim with no support.

Well, it is thusfar equally unsupported to call them BETTER.

Please point out the post where I said that a homosexual couple was a better family for a child than a heterosexual couple.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I've supported my case with actual statistics; you've been unable to. You have no argument, simply assertions.

No you have not. You only have assertions as well. If you could prove that orphanages are worse than homo couples, it would be different. However, you've not done that, so quit lying about how you've supported your case with statistics. I could give you some statistics about orphanages too, but you wouldn't accept that as proof, now would you? Don't expect me to concede to something you wouldn't.

Please point out the post where I said that a homosexual couple was a better family for a child than a heterosexual couple.

I misread your post. What I meant is that it is equally unsupported to say that Homo couples are better than orphanages. You've shown how orphanages aren't good, but you've not shown anything to be better other than adoption in general. And since I'm pro- adoption-in-general, you've proven absolutely nothing with your stats about orphanages to me that I didn't already think.

[JerryLove]

No you have not. You only have assertions as well. If you could prove that orphanages are worse than homo couples, it would be different. However, you've not done that, so quit lying about how you've supported your case with statistics.

http://ca.lwv.org/jjds/chap6.html
30-40% of homeless young people had been in foster care. That percentage is believed to have risen.
33% have done something illegal to get food
Of children involved in neglect cases: by 16 49% have been arrested.

Got anything matching that for homosexual parents?

Post #49 in the old thread post 17 in this one.

I could give you some statistics about orphanages too

So you keep claiming... much like you claim to have seen statistics on homosexual couples (the one's which made you conclude that a female parent was "critical"). However, you've not produced any (mine are at http://ca.lwv.org/jjds/chap6.html)

So let's go back to your claim that a female parent is "critical". Support statistically that more than 49% of children without female mother-figures have been arrested by age 16.

I misread your post. What I meant is that it is equally unsupported to say that Homo couples are better than orphanages. You've shown how orphanages aren't good, but you've not shown anything to be better other than adoption in general.

Are you asserting that there's more than a 49% arrest rate for the children of homosexual couples? That's an extraordinary claim for which you have no support.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

How about you eat a bag of crap?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Consider yourself reported again.

While I'm not going to do anything RIGHT NOW, I'm closing this thread pending sending it over to the Mods forum for now...

If it's getting to this point, I think the thread is just getting old and rancid in all honesty. Kind of like my stomach after those french fries I ate last night...

[Art]

Play nice kids. You both know the rules here.