Audrey Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Broken families? If that is a synonym for divorce, I might puke. Grab a pail. It is. And an intentionally obnoxious and derogatory one at that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'm not talking legally. Here you go; http://dictionary.re.../browse/slander *squints* a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: Well, there you go. Still ain't slander because it's not false. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #hashtagsarelame #oldpeopleshouldnthashtag #lostfaithinhumanity #ohmygodmakeitstop 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Divorce is a recognition that the family is broken Yes, but it also breaks it in a way that it wasn't generally broken before (ie. physically separates the mother and father). Historically speaking, it actually is No, not the association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It is a matter of historical record that Berlin was super gay and less than a generation later Germany cities were smoldering piles of rubble. The association is undeniable. We can observe similar examples of moral degeneracy accompanying social collapse throughout history. There is a clear pattern at work, tho it's not something you or anybody else will be able to reduce to a simple formula. Jumping a little late into the fray: Even if Berlin was Super Gay, it is a fact that the majority of the population even in gayest of cities is straight. Super Gay cities, as you call them, have a larger population of gays than other cities. So, are you saying that the supposedly "virtuous life style" and the sexual orientation of the "straight" majority of Berlin's population amounted to nothing and did not prevent Berlin from becoming a smoldering rubble pile??? If housing a lot of gays bought punishment to Germany, then, most of the people not being gay should have neutralized that punishment according to your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 You guys keep repeating yourselves, so guess what? #RepeatingMyself If you're tired of seeing the Socrates quote, your side needs to stop slandering in lieu of argument. If not, I don't mind posting it again. Could you, perhaps, give a concise and specific definition of the word "slander" from your fictional dictionary? I think it would help a lot if you defined your terms. Your definitions are so clearly not the ones the rest of us are using for that word and many others. #getaclue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 No, not the association. Mmmm, yeah it is. It certainly was a minority view among the various writers of the Bible, and they should know. http://bit.ly/1HlR0vI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Still ain't slander because it's not false. Yah it is. More importantly, it's completely superficial. #SubtantiveCounterArgument #hashtagsarelame #oldpeopleshouldnthashtag #lostfaithinhumanity #ohmygodmakeitstop #Ageism Plus, I'm not old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #sorryswb #iboughtyourbooksthoughsothatshouldmakeupforallthetrollbaiting #canthelpbutfeedthetrolls #needthelastword #hashtagintervention #pleasemakeitstop 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Everyone needs to channel their inner Inigo Montoya. Repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #im24soeveryoneisoldtome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yah it is. More importantly, it's completely superficial. Okay. Exactly what do you think people have said about you in this thread that's a. malicious and also b. false? (Oh, this should be good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #hashtagsarelame #oldpeopleshouldnthashtag #lostfaithinhumanity #ohmygodmakeitstop #theresapillforthatnow #youknowIloveyou #it'sokayit'slegalnow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #Semantics I'm not talking legally. Here you go; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander #Sweetie Wow, she gets it. She finally gets it. #SlowClap Libel is written. libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #wouldtotallytakethatpill #itsmedicaliswear #butidontliveinastatewhereitslegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Jumping a little late into the fray: Even if Berlin was Super Gay, it is a fact that the majority of the population even in gayest of cities is straight. Super Gay cities, as you call them, have a larger population of gays than other cities. So, are you saying that the supposedly "virtuous life style" and the sexual orientation of the "straight" majority of Berlin's population amounted to nothing and did not prevent Berlin from becoming a smoldering rubble pile??? If housing a lot of gays bought punishment to Germany, then, most of the people not being gay should have neutralized that punishment according to your logic. No, I've already addressed this. Cultural degeneracy is a problem throughout society. The promotion, etc., of homosexuality is a subset/symptom thereof. Could you, perhaps, give a concise and specific definition of the word "slander" from your fictional dictionary? I think it would help a lot if you defined your terms. Your definitions are so clearly not the ones the rest of us are using for that word and many others. #getaclue I just did. Here's the link again; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander The 1st definition will do. noun 1.defamation; calumny: Mmmm, yeah it is. It certainly was a minority view among the various writers of the Bible, and they should know. http://bit.ly/1HlR0vI You need to look up the definition of association. Like seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It still isn't slander, libel is written! The definitions will not do because slander is not written. Look at the 3rd definition. You really play fast and loose with the dictionary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 No, I've already addressed this. Cultural degeneracy is a problem throughout society. The promotion, etc., of homosexuality is a subset/symptom thereof. You've stated it, again and again and again, but you haven't proven it. Proof means giving a clear and coherent definition of "cultural degeneracy", explaining why homosexuality counts, explaining how it harms society, and showing that both acceptance of gays and other signs of "cultural degeneracy" (each of which you'll have to individually justify as being "a sign of degeneracy") are actually on the rise. And that's before you show how these are associated with the fall of societies. You need to look up the definition of association. Like seriously. No, no I do not, because even if S&G actually existed and if they actually were destroyed, that destruction can be put squarely at the feet of either natural disaster of an act of divine wrath. If it's a natural disaster, then "degeneracy" doesn't come into play. If it's divine wrath, then the wrath can be presumed to be caused by something - and that something is spelled out in the Bible as not being homosexuality or the acceptance thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Okay. Exactly what do you think people have said about you in this thread that's a. malicious and also b. false? (Oh, this should be good.) Check out the posts with the Socrates quote. #ShesGoingInCircles Libel is written. libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. Again, that's only the legal definition. The dictionary definition I provided does not agree with you. Slander is a general term (not just a legal one) too. Semantics aside, the point is clear enough. You insult in lieu of any real argument, which shows you don't actually have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Look at the 3rd definition. >Ignoring the 1st and 2nd definitions because even if S&G actually existed and if they actually were destroyed, that destruction can be put squarely at the feet of either natural disaster of an act of divine wrath. If it's a natural disaster, then "degeneracy" doesn't come into play. >She doesn't know what association means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Again, that's only the legal definition. The dictionary definition I provided does not agree with you. Slander is a general term (not just a legal one) too. Semantics aside, the point is clear enough. You insult in lieu of any real argument, which shows you don't actually have one. I didn't insult you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Check out the posts with the Socrates quote. I've seen 'em. I don't think those things you're quoting are false. Like I said, your responses seem to only tangentially connect with the comments you're trying to respond to. Semantics aside, the point is clear enough. You insult in lieu of any real argument, which shows you don't actually have one. Wow, projection much? Insult is another term that doesn't mean "disagrees with ananemone". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/degenerate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 >She doesn't know what association means Oh, I know what it means. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you don't know what it means or how to tell whether or not it is relevant. Like I said upthread, an increase in global temperatures is associated with a decline of naval piracy. That doesn't mean that this is a meaningful correlation. Per capita cheese consumption is associated with deaths due to being tangled in bedsheets. The age of Miss America is associated with murders by steam. Humans are really good at seeing patterns and associations when there are none. The wise person learns to filter through their instinct to notice those associations that confirm their biases. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Dictionary quotations are not proof. I've already explained what you need to do. You've made a poor attempt at step one, defining "cultural degeneracy". Please try again, and answer all questions. 1/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Even the air traffic control tower is happy about marriage equality! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I didn't insult you. Insult is another term that doesn't mean "disagrees with ananemone". The posts speak for themselves. The record is in this thread. You may not have personally, Slart, but you're defending it. Oh, I know what it means. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you don't know what it means or how to tell whether or not it is relevant. Like I said upthread, an increase in global temperatures is associated with a decline of naval piracy. That doesn't mean that this is a meaningful correlation. Per capita cheese consumption is associated with deaths due to being tangled in bedsheets. The age of Miss America is associated with murders by steam. Humans are really good at seeing patterns and associations when there are none. The wise person learns to filter through their instinct to notice those associations that confirm their biases. Again, whether it is relevant is a different matter than whether it is associated. #1MillionAnd1 The association is enough for my purposes here. If you will admit the (obvious) association then my job is done. Whether or not you see the relevance is not a matter of proof or of my convincing. We'll have to leave it there. Dictionary quotations are not proof. I've already explained what you need to do. You've made a poor attempt at step one, defining "cultural degeneracy". Please try again, and answer all questions. 1/10 You asked for a definition. You got a definition. The answers to the rest of it I've already written here. #SheWantsMeToRepeatMyself #Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 #stepawayfromthehashtags #ifyoukeephashtaggingyoullgoblind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 You asked for a definition. You got a definition. The answers to the rest of it I've already written here. No. You haven't. You have not explained how or why acceptance of gays is a sign of "cultural degeneracy" (a term you've yet to define, btw - you might as well say you defined "greenhouse" by defining both "green" and "house"). You've yet to explain how this is harmful to society. I don't want you to repeat yourself. Good gracious, no. I want you to say something substantial, which you've yet to do. Please, do NOT repeat yourself. The last thing we need is more storm and fury. Say something different. Try answering a specific question. If you actually explain any of the things I asked about, you will most definitely not be repeating yourself. Again, whether it is relevant is a different matter than whether it is associated. Normally I would agree, but you've been spamming up and down this thread that just because two things appear to be associated, one is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yes, but it also breaks it in a way that it wasn't generally broken before (ie. physically separates the mother and father). Breaking and repairing can look the same, I guess. It's kind of like cleaning your room when you're a kid. It looks a whole lot worse before it starts to look better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The posts speak for themselves. The record is in this thread. You may not have personally, Slart, but you're defending it. Where were you insulted that I have defended? You insulted me, you said terrible things about NAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 No. You haven't. You have not explained how or why acceptance of gays is a sign of "cultural degeneracy" (a term you've yet to define, btw - you might as well say you defined "greenhouse" by defining both "green" and "house"). You've yet to explain how this is harmful to society. If you understand what culture is, and now you understand what degeneracy is, you should have a pretty good idea. The fact that homosexuality, among other things, qualifies is as simple as noting that it accompanies degenerate societies (those in decline/collapse). Circular? Perhaps. True too. The thing speaks for itself. And yes I have explained how it is harmful, altho harm is not the primary point. It is harmful because it is false, and pretending something is true that is false is wrong. Further, there is tangible harm insofar as marriage corresponds with the right to adopt children. Children need mothers and fathers, roles that are unique and gender normative. Breaking and repairing can look the same, I guess. Tell that to the kid now without a parent (present). Where were you insulted that I have defended? You insulted me, you said terrible things about NAs. Look, I haven't kept track of every single post (approaching 400 now) by every poster by name n this thread. I have been insulted, it may not have been you. You were defending it, which is why I replied in that context to you. If you didn't, great. I did not insult you. I described a historical observation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Tell that to the kid now without a parent (present). I don't think you want to talk to me about specifics. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Look, I haven't kept track of every single post (approaching 400 now) by every poster by name n this thread. I have been insulted, it may not have been you. You were defending it, which is why I replied in that context to you. If you didn't, great. I did not insult you. I described a historical observation. It was an offensive historical observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If you understand what culture is, and now you understand what degeneracy is, you should have a pretty good idea. Nope. I want to see it in your own words. You seem to have some funny definitions for things, so I want to be darn sure I know what you think you're talking about. The fact that homosexuality, among other things, qualifies is as simple as noting that it accompanies degenerate societies (those in decline/collapse). And dihydrogen monoxide is found in cancerous tumors. You find homosexuality in ALL cultures, not just "those in decline/collapse". Circular? Perhaps. True too. The thing speaks for itself. No. It doesn't. You may believe it does, but if you wish to convince other people you're going to have to come up with an argument. Assertion isn't an argument. And yes I have explained how it is harmful, altho harm is not the primary point. No, you haven't and yes, it is. It is harmful because it is false, and pretending something is true that is false is wrong. How does it do harm? Further, there is tangible harm insofar as marriage corresponds with the right to adopt children. Children need mothers and fathers, roles that are unique and gender normative. You are assuming facts that are very much not in evidence. I did not insult you. I described a historical observation. You drew an appalling correlation between two things that do not correlate at all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I don't think you want to talk to me about specifics. There are cases where the marriage is worse than the divorce, I grant that. However, you cannot say it is "fixing" when the children are losing something essential (their mother or father). If it is a broken solution it's just less broken than the alternative. In general and in principle, a mother and father are the optimal arrangement. It was an offensive historical observation. Being offended doesn't necessarily mean you were insulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 There are cases where the marriage is worse than the divorce, I grant that. However, you cannot say it is "fixing" when the children are losing something essential (their mother or father). If it is a broken solution it's just less broken than the alternative. In most divorces nowadays, children stay in touch with both parent, and the parents share custody. The ideal is for them to share custody equally. In general and in principle, a mother and father are the optimal arrangement. There are a great many societies that are not oriented around the nuclear family, many of which have fathers that simply visit rather than being a day-to-day part of life. Those children do just fine. You're letting your biases talk for you again. Being offended doesn't necessarily mean you were insulted. Perhaps it means she was slandered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 There are cases where the marriage is worse than the divorce, I grant that. However, you cannot say it is "fixing" when the children are losing something essential (their mother or father). If it is a broken solution it's just less broken than the alternative. In general and in principle, a mother and father are the optimal arrangement. By "essential" I assume you mean essential to their wellbeing, but sometimes retaining a parent is worse than losing them. What's broken is some people inspire other people to write what I've just written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 You find homosexuality in ALL cultures, not just "those in decline/collapse". if you wish to convince other people you're going to have to come up with an argument. How does it do harm? You are assuming facts that are very much not in evidence. You drew an appalling correlation between two things that do not correlate at all. It's not just the matter of presence. It's the promotion, increased tolerance, and, as in cases like this, the legalization and extension of various legal provisions that are unjustified. Association is enough for my purposes. Beyond that it's on you. "You can lead a horse to water..." If you believe the truth has value in itself, then promoting falsehood as truth is wrong. Quantifying that harm is not going to be possible for either of us, so don't ask. The facts are in evidence. I've supported them here; http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/555815-sc-ruling-debate-edition/?p=6434397 And they do correlate, as I've already demonstrated. The correlation is easy. The significance is hard. #DatHorse In most divorces nowadays, children stay in touch with both parent, and the parents share custody. The ideal is for them to share custody equally. There are a great many societies that are not oriented around the nuclear family, many of which have fathers that simply visit rather than being a day-to-day part of life. Those children do just fine. You're letting your biases talk for you again. "In touch" is not "present". Becoming a ping-pong ball is not ideal. Further, the fact of the separation itself is evidence of disruption and failure that the children inevitably internalize on some level. Related; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Sometimes retaining a parent is worse than losing them. Yes, and I've already granted that, but I maintain it is the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yes, and I've already granted that, but I maintain it is the exception, not the rule. And thank goodness for that. I'd rather there weren't exceptions though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If you believe the truth has value in itself, then promoting falsehood as truth is wrong. Quantifying that harm is not going to be possible for either of us, so don't ask. Marriage is a human-defined term. It's not something like evolution or global warming or the round earth theory where one side is obviously right and the other obviously wrong. "Truth" doesn't come into the equation. "In touch" is not "present". Becoming a ping-pong ball is not ideal. Further, the fact of the separation itself is evidence of disruption and failure that the children inevitably internalize on some level. Citation needed. The facts are in evidence. I've supported them here; http://forums.welltr...tion/?p=6434397 No, you really haven't. You've cobbled together a few very shaky studies with some incredibly dubious correlations, blithely thrown away any other explanation for your so-called conclusions, and made a bunch of unsupported assertions. The fact that you continue to do so does not constitute proof. Also, you have poor taste in music. I'm just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'd much rather a kid had two mothers or two fathers than be one of these exceptions to the mummy + daddy "rule." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Marriage is a human-defined term. It's not something like evolution or global warming or the round earth theory where one side is obviously right and the other obviously wrong. "Truth" doesn't come into the equation. No, you really haven't. You've cobbled together a few very shaky studies with some incredibly dubious correlations Also, you have poor taste in music. I'm just sayin'. Marriage is something we recognize, not merely define. There is a difference. The studies are not "shaky". The first 2 links I cited are from the federal government. It's also obvious to most people that mothers and fathers parent differently, but you're pleading ignorance for the sake of your argument - I get it. Blink 182 is not my cup of tea usually, but I like that song. It was a song a relation of mine played for me after her parent's divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It is interesting watching children seek out the fathering they are missing from someone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'd much rather a kid had two mothers or two fathers than be one of these exceptions to the mummy + daddy "rule." If the roles are unique then it's clear homosexuals cannot fulfill one of them. For example, 2 lesbians cannot present a father figure. And if the roles are gender normative, as the studies also conclude, then homosexuals cannot fulfill either. Why set kids up for failure? And 2 wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It is interesting watching children seek out the fathering they are missing from someone else. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It is interesting watching children seek out the fathering they are missing from someone else. Yeah, quoting myself. This is why I conclude it is not mothers and fathers children need so much as involved, caring, non-destructive people of both genders. (I have no experience on this topic with those who weren't born one or the other.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If the roles are unique then it's clear homosexuals cannot fulfill one of them. For example, 2 lesbians cannot present a father figure. And if the roles are gender normative, as the studies also conclude, then homosexuals cannot fulfill either. Why set kids up for failure? There is no form of "failure" that is unique to children growing up with gay parents or single parents. If lesbians don't have any fathers, brothers, uncles or friends who will step up and provide that "essential" male energy, then the shame belongs entirely to the men, not the women who are getting on and parenting their kids. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 What is failure as a person anyway? The people I know who have caused the "exceptions to the rule" grew up in properly married, mummy and daddy homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts