[JOHNNY G]

Originally Posted by Tank Wilson

I've got this theory that when homosexuals finally get treated like "real" people, then we'll stop talking about homosexuals.

and conservatives DO NOT WANT TO STOP TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS.

see Rick Santorum for details.

Now, I'm gonna go away for another two years. When I get back, I hope this thread is not still on the front page of pb politics.

GOOD LUCK GENTLEMEN.

Works here in Canada.

We have rights and people leave us alone and know talks about it here.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by Tank Wilson

I've got this theory that when homosexuals finally get treated like "real" people, then we'll stop talking about homosexuals.

and conservatives DO NOT WANT TO STOP TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS.

see Rick Santorum for details.

Now, I'm gonna go away for another two years. When I get back, I hope this thread is not still on the front page of pb politics.

GOOD LUCK GENTLEMEN.

Very true. There's big money in complaining about them.

I wonder how much money this lady made as a lobbiest against the NH marriage equality law. She claimed homosexuality causes pedophelia. Now she's convicted of pimping out her 14yr old daughter and taking video of herself having sex with her daughter. Glad we have conservatives around to protect America's values....

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...late=mobileart

If the link doesn't work, google Lisa Biron NH. It just happened last week.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Very true. There's big money in complaining about them.

I wonder how much money this lady made as a lobbiest against the NH marriage equality law. She claimed homosexuality causes pedophelia. Now she's convicted of pimping out her 14yr old daughter and taking video of herself having sex with her daughter. Glad we have conservatives around to protect America's values....

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...late=mobileart

If the link doesn't work, google Lisa Biron NH. It just happened last week.

Conservatives/Republicans have a pretty long and twisted history of sexual'capades in politics, which is pretty histerical considering they are the party of 'the family Values.' I'm just waiting for the longest serving lesbian in congress (Lindsey Grahm) to come out.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Care to explain to me how hypocrisy on part of a public figure or individual at any level discredits a position?

[barrel roll]

I find that comment puzzling. Well, not the comment but the notion that Republicans are the only ones with the inability to keep promises or keep their pants on.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I find that comment puzzling. Well, not the comment but the notion that Republicans are the only ones with the inability to keep promises or keep their pants on.

The issue is never addressed on an intellectual level, merely with ridicule or the exposure of hypocrisy. Once said hypocrisy is exposed, exceptions make the rules and the cognitive kill switch is flipped. It's pathetic actually, and I expect more out people especially our educators.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Care to explain to me how hypocrisy on part of a public figure or individual at any level discredits a position?

In an academic sense, It doesn't discredit the entire ideology, but it does discredit the words coming out of their mouth. In another example, does anyone care about George bush's electric bill? No. Does anyone care about the inconvenient truth of Al Gore's electric bill. Oh yeah.

Anytime someone is very public caught in a "do as I say not as I do" situation the public perception of the idea is tarnished.

For me it just proves that they are about the power and not the idea. Therefore was the idea really that important to begin with?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

In an academic sense, It doesn't discredit the entire ideology, but it does discredit the words coming out of their mouth. In another example, does anyone care about George bush's electric bill? No. Does anyone care about the inconvenient truth of Al Gore's electric bill. Oh yeah.

Anytime someone is very public caught in a "do as I say not as I do" situation the public perception of the idea is tarnished.

For me it just proves that they are about the power and not the idea. Therefore was the idea really that important to begin with?

The idea is important. Do you discard it on these grounds alone?

[scienceguy]

If its merely a battle of public perception, why should I accept it if the icon spouting the idea can't

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

In an academic sense, It doesn't discredit the entire ideology, but it does discredit the words coming out of their mouth. In another example, does anyone care about George bush's electric bill? No. Does anyone care about the inconvenient truth of Al Gore's electric bill. Oh yeah.

Anytime someone is very public caught in a "do as I say not as I do" situation the public perception of the idea is tarnished.

For me it just proves that they are about the power and not the idea. Therefore was the idea really that important to begin with?

Just because we do doesn't mean we should. Both bush and gore's ideas should be addressed in their own merit. Unfortunately, we often aren't this logical and choose to falliciously reject an argument due to the qualities of the arguer.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Care to explain to me how hypocrisy on part of a public figure or individual at any level discredits a position?

You need me to explain?

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I find that comment puzzling. Well, not the comment but the notion that Republicans are the only ones with the inability to keep promises or keep their pants on.

No, I'm sure Demos/liberals do the same. Difference is one the other side puts itself on the family values pedistal (guess which one). Its just amusing to me.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

If its merely a battle of public perception, why should I accept it if the icon spouting the idea can't

Perceptions aren't ( always) reality. Life, well politics, is a battleground of ideas.

Originally Posted by marcozombie

You need me to explain?

Clearly, I see no logical basis for your dismissal.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Perceptions aren't ( always) reality. Life, well politics, is a battleground of ideas. .

I never said perception was reality. People tend to see what they want to see. Votes are all about perception (public opinion of candidate). Ideas play a role, but delivery is very important. Associating negative ideas with the enemy is also key.

Like I said, through the academic lens ideas can stand on their own. Through the practical lens the speaker and idea are one. If the speaker can't walk the talk, then what does that say about the idea?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

I never said perception was reality. People tend to see what they want to see. Votes are all about perception (public opinion of candidate). Ideas play a role, but delivery is very important. Associating negative ideas with the enemy is also key.

Like I said, through the academic lens ideas can stand on their own. Through the practical lens the speaker and idea are one. If the speaker can't walk the talk, then what does that say about the idea?

But I was asking you guys, more specifically Marco. I would hope you are more rational than the general public.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Like I said, through the academic lens ideas can stand on their own. Through the practical lens the speaker and idea are one. If the speaker can't walk the talk, then what does that say about the idea?

Nothing. It says nothing about the idea; just the speaker.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Clearly, I see no logical basis for your dismissal.

Myopia?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

Myopia?

What is myopic?

Just answer the damned question.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Care to explain to me how hypocrisy on part of a public figure or individual at any level discredits a position?

Mark Foley-U.S. Representative (R)

The Crime: Sending sexually laced, gramatically challenged instant messages and e-mails to teenaged boys in the Congressional page program for more than 10 years.

The Hypocrisy: Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. One of the foremost opponents of child pornography in the Senate.

The Quote: “get a ruler and measure it for me"


I don't know, you tell me how this hypocrisy discredits him.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

Mark Foley-U.S. Representative (R)

The Crime: Sending sexually laced, gramatically challenged instant messages and e-mails to teenaged boys in the Congressional page program for more than 10 years.

The Hypocrisy: Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. One of the foremost opponents of child pornography in the Senate.

The Quote: “get a ruler and measure it for me"


I don't know, you tell me how this hypocrisy discredits him.

The point is his hypocrisy (being a public proponent against child pornography while privately using child pornography) doesn't invalidate his public argument (child pornography is wrong). This is because the merit of an argument is independent of the arguers qualities.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

Mark Foley-U.S. Representative (R)

The Crime: Sending sexually laced, gramatically challenged instant messages and e-mails to teenaged boys in the Congressional page program for more than 10 years.

The Hypocrisy: Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. One of the foremost opponents of child pornography in the Senate.

The Quote: “get a ruler and measure it for me"


I don't know, you tell me how this hypocrisy discredits him.

Beat me to it:

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The point is his hypocrisy (being a public proponent against child pornography while privately using child pornography) doesn't invalidate his public argument (child pornography is wrong). This is because the merit of an argument is independent of the arguers qualities.

Marco, you're not even answering my question. You're just giving me evidence of hypocrisy and dubious character.