[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Beat me to it:

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

I see what you are getting at...give me another shot at it: please rephrase the question...

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

I see what you are getting at...give me another shot at it: please rephrase the question...

Why does hypocrisy invalidate an idea?

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

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

Perhaps we're looking at this differently. I understand what you're saying and I do agree to a point looking at it case by case as an academic argument.

However, running a theory through the real world is the best test. If the people that want an idea to be popular repeatedly fail when they try apply it, that says something about the idea. Even if the idea is a good idea, if it's not practical then it's moot.

It's kind of like the hippies of old that talked about the entire world living in harmony and everyone is happy etc. it's a great idea, but even they couldn't do it.

I watch the real world crush PhD's good ideas every day.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Perhaps we're looking at this differently. I understand what you're saying and I do agree to a point looking at it case by case as an academic argument.

However, running a theory through the real world is the best test. If the people that want an idea to be popular repeatedly fail when they try apply it, that says something about the idea. Even if the idea is a good idea, if it's not practical then it's moot.

It's kind of like the hippies of old that talked about the entire world living in harmony and everyone is happy etc. it's a great idea, but even they couldn't do it.

I watch the real world crush PhD's good ideas every day.

Were you ever attempting to answer my original question? Because I'm confused how we arrived here.

What I originally intended to address is the problem I see of character arguments circumventing reasoned debate. Specifically in respects to hypocrisy and the use of hypocrisy as a character attack intended to invalidate an idea or position. Essentially taking the actions of one individual and making it a microcosm applicable to anyone holding that position.

Or put simply, it's a kindergarten technique of telling someone they are wrong about the color of the sky because they are a butthead.

[scienceguy]

I thought we were talking about conservatives not being able to practice what they preach on gays.

You said that the validity of the idea should be separated from the validity of the speaker.

I agreed with you in an academic sense on an individual basis. I also agree that it's silly to judge an idea based on unrelated transgressions of the speaker.

However this issue is directly related to the transgression and is not an isolated incident. If so many speakers cannot apply the idea they believe, then that calls their ideas on gays into question.

I compared it to rich environmentalists burning lots of oil to maintain their lifestyle. It's a nice idea that we should all be more efficient, but it fails in the real world because even the people professing the idea won't participate. It fails the real world test.

Thus in this case I think the actions of the speaker are important when judging the idea.

[Murph1329]

will gays pay more for obamacare? I say yes since they're 50% more likely to get AIDS than a heterosexual couple.


bad lifestyle = pay more....am i right?

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

will gays pay more for obamacare?

Pay more towards what?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

Pay more towards what?

I think he is making the suggestion that much how smokers are being marginalized and penalized for their lifestyle choices, so should people with high risk sexual lifestyles.

Maybe.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

Pay more towards what?

premiums

[OccupyST]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

bad lifestyle = pay more....am i right?

No.. You assume the "lifestyle" invariably means sex. Unprotected sex at that... That's not what defines homosexuality. It's not what defines heterosexuality. I thought this was common knowledge by now..

Let me give you a suitable parallel based on your suggestion. Humans have the capability to smoke. So if you're a human, you should pay more for insurance because you're more likely to smoke and develop lung cancer.

Your reply will most likely include something like "Well just look at the statistics.." and my reply will be the same. You need to understand what sexual orientation is and what defines it, rather than to vaguely group everything based on a fetish..

...

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by OccupyST

No.. You assume the "lifestyle" invariably means sex. Unprotected sex at that... That's not what defines homosexuality. It's not what defines heterosexuality. I thought this was common knowledge by now..

Let me give you a suitable parallel based on your suggestion. Humans have the capability to smoke. So if you're a human, you should pay more for insurance because you're more likely to smoke and develop lung cancer.

Your reply will most likely include something like "Well just look at the statistics.." and my reply will be the same. You need to understand what sexual orientation is and what defines it, rather than to vaguely group everything based on a fetish..

...

Yes statistics do show that people of a certain sexual orientation are more prone to certain ailments, just like smoking. Safe sex is not 100% safe so that argument doesn't hold up. If you're a sexually active homosexual you have a greater chance to contracting a STDs...that's just an irrefutable fact backed up by CDC studies.

What i find disturbing is that doctors are required to ask if you smoke and are now being asked to find out if you own a firearm, BUT they do not have the legal right to ask for your sexual preference. One would think your sexual preference has more of an impact on your health than owning a firearm.


My whole point is that we're decided to let the federal government be incharge of our health so I wouldn't be surprised if they start implementing things like this. It probably won't be the liberals that do it but the liberals are the ones giving them to power to do it. Democrat or Conservative this is why you need to be very careful giving the feds power like this because it may not be your party that takes it to the extreme.

[OccupyST]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

Yes statistics do show that people of a certain sexual orientation are more prone to certain ailments, just like smoking. Safe sex is not 100% safe so that argument doesn't hold up. If you're a sexually active homosexual you have a greater chance to contracting a STDs...that's just an irrefutable fact backed up by CDC studies.

What i find disturbing is that doctors are required to ask if you smoke and are now being asked to find out if you own a firearm, BUT they do not have the legal right to ask for your sexual preference. One would think your sexual preference has more of an impact on your health than owning a firearm.


My whole point is that we're decided to let the federal government be incharge of our health so I wouldn't be surprised if they start implementing things like this. It probably won't be the liberals that do it but the liberals are the ones giving them to power to do it. Democrat or Conservative this is why you need to be very careful giving the feds power like this because it may not be your party that takes it to the extreme.

Just.. Stop. Please. You failed to understand my previous post like I assumed would happen. I told you, kindly, that homosexuality =/= anal sex. Or any sexual fetish for that matter. Why do you not understand this simple and operative definition? As a member of the LGBT community, I can tell you that there are many who do not partake in anal sex. Many. Their orientation does not automatically magnetize them to a fetish, as you somehow think.

I've made this observation multiple times on this thread, and yet people seem to think gay = anal sex. It's amusing, but also annoying.

[barrel roll]

That's a lie, homosexuals like anal sex more than heterosexuals. And heterosexuals love anal sex.

[sucka T.]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

That's a lie, homosexuals like anal sex more than heterosexuals. And heterosexuals love anal sex.

Let the flame fest begin. (No pun intended).

Seriously though, I am all for equality for the LGBT community, but everyone gets lumped together as far as insurance goes. Smokers, young drivers, old people. This isnt really anything new. Insurance is statistics. Just because you fall in the outlier doesn't mean you wont get ****ed over. Its unfortunate.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by OccupyST

Just.. Stop. Please. You failed to understand my previous post like I assumed would happen. I told you, kindly, that homosexuality =/= anal sex. Or any sexual fetish for that matter. Why do you not understand this simple and operative definition? As a member of the LGBT community, I can tell you that there are many who do not partake in anal sex. Many. Their orientation does not automatically magnetize them to a fetish, as you somehow think.

I've made this observation multiple times on this thread, and yet people seem to think gay = anal sex. It's amusing, but also annoying.

Anal sex? Anal sex has nothing to do with what I'm saying why don't you understand that?

I'm talking about homosexuals being at a greater risk of getting a STD. Where you stick it doesn't increase your odds of getting a STD if it did the rate would be the same between homosexuals and heterosexuals. What matters is lifestyle and your LGBT community lives a MUCH riskier lifestyle.

[OccupyST]

I don't like it. I know many who also don't.

(Also, your vague generalization still does not dismiss the fact that it is a fetish that cannot be associated with one orientation over another.)

[tsbalr120]

Murph actually has a decent point..

Occupy, he's not saying all gays have anal sex, just like not all young drivers have risky driving behavior. I have never gotten a ticket or been in an accident, is it fair I get lumped in with all the ****ty <21 year old drivers? No, but thats how the industry is. We are lumped into that category because that group has a higher risk overall, which can argubly include gays.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by OccupyST

I don't like it. I know many who also don't.

(Also, your vague generalization still does not dismiss the fact that it is a fetish that cannot be associated with one orientation over another.)

you can not like it all you want
guilty by association

Now you know how the gun owners feel. I hope one day Obamacare comes after you all.

[OccupyST]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

you can not like it all you want
guilty by association

Now you know how the gun owners feel. I hope one day Obamacare comes after you all.

So you're just a disgruntled gun owner pissed at Obama.. hah.

I'm a gun owner and I can't stop laughing at the rhetoric and fear spreading across the web/Facebook at the moment. Attack everything else to make a point about Liberals controlling everything.

Keep in mind, I still can't get married. **** silly gun regulation fears--

"Now I know how the gun owners feel?" HAHAHA Get classified as a second rate citizen your entire adult life. Get lumped into a generalization and have half the country spit on you. Then come back with that statement..


*edit** I'm sorry--I still can't get that out of my head... You're pissed about a gun regulation so you came onto this board to suggest an even greater divide against an LGBT community that lacks over a thousand rights you already have????

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by OccupyST

So you're just a disgruntled gun owner pissed at Obama.. hah.

I'm a gun owner and I can't stop laughing at the rhetoric and fear spreading across the web/Facebook at the moment. Attack everything else to make a point about Liberals controlling everything.

Keep in mind, I still can't get married. **** silly gun regulation fears--

"Now I know how the gun owners feel?" HAHAHA Get classified as a second rate citizen your entire adult life. Get lumped into a generalization and have half the country spit on you. Then come back with that statement..

honestly i could care less where you stick it and i think the federal government shouldn't be in the marriage game.

[OccupyST]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

honestly i could care less where you stick it and i think the federal government shouldn't be in the marriage game.

You're not my target demographic anyways. Just realize that you were the one who said "Now I know how gun owners feel." I really hope you can log off tonight knowing how silly that was.

*Edit* And federal government had to step in a generation ago to make it legal for interracial to marry. Would you rather they have not done that?