seeing a bunch of straight people running around scantily clad at carnivale certainly doesn't turn gay people into heterophobes
[QUOTE=Robot Jesus;31719231]I'm gay, and I agree with this partially. It give the general population who don't have a major opinion on the issue the picture that we are all nothing but a bunch of sexual deviants; however, even if the parades were just marches for equality without any of the sexual aspects tacked on, it wouldn't change the minds of people who are opposed to it, seeing how their whole entire stance against gay marriage is based off of their religion, and they just use the sexuality and vulgarity of the parades to sway other people's opinions on the issue. It's still the wrong way to fight for equality, but even if it just stopped one day, the people opposed to gays will just find something else to base their argument on (while poorly trying to hide the religious aspects of it).[/QUOTE]
Overall it has a negligible negative effect and people aren't going to be swayed from one side to the either because of it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31719268]Overall it has a negligible negative effect and people aren't going to be swayed from one side to the either because of it.[/QUOTE]
You are so knowledgeable about the effects it has that you are able to describe them with complete certainty as "neglibibly negative", good thing we have an expert present
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719293]You are so knowledgeable about the effects it has that you are able to describe them with complete certainty as "neglibibly negative", good thing we have an expert present[/QUOTE]
You're losing ground.
Why don't you just be a good person and admit you're wrong. I'd respect you for it.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719293]You are so knowledgeable about the effects it has that you are able to describe them with complete certainty as "neglibibly negative", good thing we have an expert present[/QUOTE]
cool. i dont care. explain to me how a gay pride parade is intrinsically different from MTV's spring break (with both featuring prominent displays of sexuality and large amounts of skin) to make it so that one makes people hate gays but the other one doesn't make people hate straights
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719293]You are so knowledgeable about the effects it has that you are able to describe them with complete certainty as "neglibibly negative", good thing we have an expert present[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously think of even one scenario where a pro-gay rights person will be swayed to be against it because of this, or an anti-gay rights person being swayed to be for it due to a lack of this?
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31719324]cool. i dont care. explain to me how a gay pride parade is intrinsically different from MTV's spring break so that one makes people hate gays but the other doesn't make people hate straights[/QUOTE]
Also this.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31719268]Overall it has a negligible negative effect and people aren't going to be swayed from one side to the either because of it.[/QUOTE]Exactly, it's not helping in the slightest, but it's not really hurting either, because the majority of the people opposed to it would be opposed either way.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;31719323]You're losing ground.
Why don't you just be a good person and admit you're wrong. I'd respect you for it.[/QUOTE]
I do not believe I am wrong, I may be unable to support myself adequately but that doesn't mean that I am wrong, or that I should tell you I am so.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719385]I do not believe I am wrong, I may be unable to support myself adequately but that doesn't mean that I am wrong, or that I should tell you I am so.[/QUOTE]
Then do you also accept that girls should not dress provocatively to prevent rapes?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31719331]Can you seriously think of even one scenario where a pro-gay rights person will be swayed to be against it because of this, or an anti-gay rights person being swayed to be for it due to a lack of this?[/QUOTE]
How am I supposed to answer a question in that format? What is a legitimate answer?
i mean if i were this hypothetical person in elecbullet's scenario who had never even heard of gay people before witnessing a parade and so my viewing of that gay pride parade was responsible for the entirety of my views on homosexuals id be all like "hmm, apparently [i]gays[/i] are a bunch of physically fit men who enjoy partying. based on this information i like gays" because i'm not a 13 year old boy who gets uncomfortable at the sight of shirtless men
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719405]How am I supposed to answer a question in that format? What is a legitimate answer?[/QUOTE]
your inability to answer is proof for his point
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719398]Then do you also accept that girls should not dress provocatively to prevent rapes?[/QUOTE]
The classic "compare to rape" argument, where you are forbidden to place any blame whatsoever on the girl because then you're a monster.
I will have to ask for a study which suggests that provocative dressing makes you more susceptible to rape first anyway.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31719412]your inability to answer is proof for his point[/QUOTE]
Atheists have lost debate to Christians before, that doesn't make God exist.
Hell, there are probably intelligent Christians out there I would become unable to answer to.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719426]The classic "compare to rape" argument, where you are forbidden to place any blame whatsoever on the girl because then you're a monster.[/quote]
And there's the crazy answer.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719385]I do not believe I am wrong, I may be unable to support myself adequately but that doesn't mean that I am wrong[/QUOTE]
there's a term for the act of continuing to believe a point despite not being able to support it: willful ignorance
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719426]The classic "compare to rape" argument, where you are forbidden to place any blame whatsoever on the girl because then you're a monster.[/QUOTE]
oh. ya see I thought you were just a weirdo internet nerd prude but now i see that you're actually just a bad person. thanks for this
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719426]Atheists have lost debate to Christians before, that doesn't make God exist.
Hell, there are probably intelligent Christians out there I would become unable to answer to.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying you concede? Generally when you have no points left and can't rebut your opponent's arguments, that means you lose.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31719443]oh. ya see I thought you were just a weirdo internet nerd prude but now i see that you're actually just a bad person. thanks for this[/QUOTE]
See this is what happens.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719442]And there's the crazy answer.[/QUOTE]
Ever popular opinions as seen on FP:
"why can't I bring race into a thread about crime without getting called a racist?"
"why can't I call flamboyent homosexuals weird without being criticized for it?"
"why can't I blame the girl in rape crimes without being called a bad person?"
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719499]See this is what happens.[/QUOTE]
Did you ever stop to consider why that happens?
Because comparison to rape is a shitty argument because it can be applied to everything, and immediately and permanently makes the person you use it against look like a horrible person no matter what he says.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719499]See this is what happens.[/QUOTE]
Here's your reading material:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism[/url]
Read it and then tell me who's at fault for a rape.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31719443]oh. ya see I thought you were just a weirdo internet nerd prude but now i see that you're actually just a bad person. thanks for this[/QUOTE]
yeah, what the hell man
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719532]Because comparison to rape is a shitty argument because it can be applied to everything, and immediately and permanently makes the person you use it against look like a horrible person no matter what he says.[/QUOTE]
To be honest you probably would have been better off without the "you can't place any blame on the girls in rape" addendum.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31719443]oh. ya see I thought you were just a weirdo internet nerd prude but now i see that you're actually just a bad person. thanks for this[/QUOTE]
I'm proud of my question
It was forged in the fires of Mount Doom with the sole purpose of forcing the opponent to either admit they're incorrect or admit to believing something completely lunatic.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719532]Because comparison to rape is a shitty argument because it can be applied to everything, and immediately and permanently makes the person you use it against look like a horrible person no matter what he says.[/QUOTE]
Exact same principles are at work and rather than rejecting the comparison as fallacious you made exactly the claim the question was tailored to provoke.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719548]I'm proud of my question
It was forged in the fires of Mount Doom with the sole purpose of forcing the opponent to either admit they're incorrect or admit to believing something completely lunatic.[/QUOTE]
Truly a masterpiece.
well apparently I have to defend a rapist now so
Imagine this scenario: In South Africa, the rape capital of the world, a woman walks into a dark alley. She is completely unprotected in any way. This is a stupid act, yes or no? Yes.
She is raped. Suddenly you are not allowed to say it was a stupid act because something absolutely horrible has happened. It is the rapist's fault, obviously, for perpetrating the crime. But she has still done something stupid.
Another example: The students at Kent State were shot by national guard. This was an extremely awful act by the national guard. 4 are killed, and several others wounded, one of which is permanently paralyzed.
The students were previously throwing stones at the national guard. Does the fact that they were shot make the statement "It is extremely stupid to throw stones at men with rifles" untrue?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719594]Imagine this scenario: In South Africa, the rape capital of the world, a woman walks into a dark alley. She is completely unprotected in any way. This is a stupid act, yes or no? Yes.
She is raped. Suddenly you are not allowed to say it was a stupid act because something absolutely horrible has happened. It is the rapist's fault, obviously, for perpetrating the crime. But she has still done something stupid.[/QUOTE]
How do I put this? Uh, for one thing, yes in that first scenario it is entirely the rapist's fault and regardless of whether or not you think it's objectively stupid to go down a dark alley is irrelevant. What would the point be in pointing this out? I for one think the more important part of that is showing sympathy for the woman's plight.
Imagine this scenario: In South Africa, the rape capital of the world, a woman walks into a dark alley. She is completely unprotected in any way. This is a stupid act, yes or no?
I am simply demonstrating this shitty argument JohnnyMo used which serves only to trap people.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719642]Imagine this scenario: In South Africa, the rape capital of the world, a woman walks into a dark alley. She is completely unprotected in any way. This is a stupid act, yes or no?
I am simply demonstrating this shitty argument JohnnyMo used which serves only to trap people.[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter?
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
Only an idiot or a lunatic would respond to that with "yes that is a stupid act".
Because he used the shitty trap argument against me, and there was no answer I could possibly give which did not leave me appearing to defend a rapist in some way, shape, or form, and appearing a complete scumbag.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719666]Because he used the shitty trap argument against me, and there was no answer I could possibly give which did not leave me appearing to defend a rapist in some way, shape, or form, and appearing a complete scumbag.[/QUOTE]
If your argument does not hold up to scrutiny, that means you've lost. There is no such thing as a "trap argument". If you believe the question is not answerable, don't fucking answer it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31719653]Only an idiot or a lunatic would respond to that with "yes that is a stupid act".[/QUOTE]
My fucking point. Something bad happened and you are COMPLETELY disallowed from saying "you did something stupid" in any shape, way, or form.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
I am still waiting for someone else to answer my counterargument above.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.