Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Still not a single reference to a single letter of the actual content, another FAIL. Sigh, i should be used to it by now.

you could cut and paste millions of pages from right wing propaganda websites full of pseudo science. im not here to baby sit you through your education, go and join a night class or something and learn what is appropriate to post as evidence and what is not.

listen if you want to put that crap up as evidence, at least have the decency to read it understand and write in your own words the bits you think are important. if you are not able to do that i will even let you cut and paste the bits you like and i will address what i think is wrong about them.

its impossible to debate when you stick up any old crap that supports your view. its no different to the reems of youtube clips rj posts.

go and ask your mate with his degree from the cylde how to do a critical analysis on a paper or book. it would help us both a great deal.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you could cut and paste millions of pages from right wing propaganda websites full of pseudo science. im not here to baby sit you through your education, go and join a night class or something and learn what is appropriate to post as evidence and what is not.

listen if you want to put that crap up as evidence, at least have the decency to read it und ...[text shortened]... the cylde how to do a critical analysis on a paper or book. it would help us both a great deal.

please simply answer the questions. If a yes or no answer is not sufficient, please feel free to elaborate. There were three, shall I repeat them again?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please simply answer the questions. If a yes or no answer is not sufficient, please feel free to elaborate. There were three, shall I repeat them again?

you dont get to ask questions. until you can play properly, like a grown up. you posted a pile of crap earlier and kept citing it as evidence despite its own author concluding his study proved nothing, you have not acknowledged this, you refuse to acknowledge your mistake and continue to post 'evidence' making the same mistakes as before.

if you want an exchange of personal opinions then im happy to do that.

if you want a exchange of scientific studies then learn how to do it and stop putting up crap like the last thing you put up.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dont get to ask questions. until you can play properly, like a grown up. you posted a pile of crap earlier and kept citing it as evidence despite its own author concluding his study proved nothing, you have not acknowledged this, you refuse to acknowledge your mistake and continue to post 'evidence' making the same mistakes as before.

if you wa ...[text shortened]... tific studies then learn how to do it and stop putting up crap like the last thing you put up.

ok, you will not answer the questions, yet you seek to ask them at almost every turn, fine, but until you do answer them, you will reminded of your failure to answer questions that were put to you. We shall assume, although it pains me greatly to proceed on the basis of an assumption, that you hold the view that, homosexuality is,

genetic or innate, immutable and that since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, you will not answer the questions, yet you seek to ask them at almost every turn, fine, but until you do answer them, you will reminded of your failure to answer questions that were put to you. We shall assume, although it pains me greatly to proceed on the basis of an assumption, that you hold the view that, homosexuality is,

genetic or inn ...[text shortened]... , immutable and that since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

unfortunate for you my views on homosexuality dont fall into the tiny little boxes you are forcing. unfortunate for you, you wont get to discuss my opinions until you prove you understand the mistakes you have made in this thread. the constant ignoring of this proves to me that you will just repeat these mistakes making any further steps in our discussion pointless.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
unfortunate for you my views on homosexuality dont fall into the tiny little boxes you are forcing. unfortunate for you, you wont get to discuss my opinions until you prove you understand the mistakes you have made in this thread. the constant ignoring of this proves to me that you will just repeat these mistakes making any further steps in our discussion pointless.

You were asked for your opinion you refused to give it. Having no alternative I was forced to proceed on an assumption against my own principles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were asked for your opinion you refused to give it. Having no alternative I was forced to proceed on an assumption against my own principles.

my opinions are on hold until you accept that the paper you posted didnt actually provide evidence (as its own author even admitted) and until you admit that the 10 point post was not relevant to the discussion we were having...and most of all that the last extract taken from a book didnt actually contain any evidence just opinion.

until you do this (or come close in your own reluctant way) i have no way of knowing if you are going to just keep posting crap that im going to have to waste time doing a critical analysis of, because you haven't.

until you do, ill be keeping my opinions to my self and wont be asking you for yours.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
my opinions are on hold until you accept that the paper you posted didnt actually provide evidence (as its own author even admitted) and until you admit that the 10 point post was not relevant to the discussion we were having...and most of all that the last extract taken from a book didnt actually contain any evidence just opinion.

until you do this ...[text shortened]... n't.

until you do, ill be keeping my opinions to my self and wont be asking you for yours.

good they are probably best kept to themselves anyway and I will proceed on the hypothesis proffered by the author of my citation. So far we have,

homosexuality is genetic or innate, immutable and since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural and since as the author points out, that there is no gay gene (another myth of the morally corrupt materialist) which predisposed one towards homosexuality and since persons have and do change their sexuality the second premise also being false one often hears arguments like that proffered by Zippy, that homosexual behavior is observable among animals and is therefore natural.

the train of thought as proffered by the author amounts to the following,

Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

let us now ascertain whether animal behavior is synonymous with human behaviour so as to form a basis for concluding that what is observable in animals is also natural for humans.

seeing that you refuse to answer any question i will now ask the question rhetorically,

Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? and of course the answer is hardly, such behavior is not natural for humans and the hypothesis that animal behaviour is synonymous with human behavior is therefore null and void making Zippys assertions quite false.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
good they are probably best kept to themselves anyway and I will proceed on the hypothesis proffered by the author of my citation.

"I will proceed on the hypothesis proffered by the author of my citation"

thats much better, well done.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie


the train of thought as proffered by the author amounts to the following,

Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

ooohhhh its to tempting......but no. i will stay strong.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b] "I will proceed on the hypothesis proffered by the author of my citation"

thats much better, well done.[/b]

i was referring to your opinions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was referring to your opinions.

just pleased you have stopped calling it 'evidence' and are referring to it for what it is, an authors personal hypothesis.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
just pleased you have stopped calling it 'evidence' and are referring to it for what it is, an authors personal hypothesis.

touchy touchy touchy stellsy wellsy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
touchy touchy touchy stellsy wellsy!

you have me all wrong, im genuinely pleased. it makes me think that in my own way ive got through your deflector shields of stubbornness with my cheeky ewoks of logic.

next step on your road to enlightenment is admitting your previous attempts at 'evidence' were cods'wollop. or at least acknowledge you are only going to post things as 'evidence' if they are actually really are 'evidence'.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you have me all wrong, im genuinely pleased. it makes me think that in my own way ive got through your deflector shields of stubbornness with my cheeky ewoks of logic.

next step on your road to enlightenment is admitting your previous attempts at 'evidence' were cods'wollop. or at least acknowledge you are only going to post things as 'evidence' if they are actually really are 'evidence'.

dream on fatboy, i never make a retraction unless its warranted and then i readily do, easily and with humility as if resigning a chess game. Evidence is evidence until proven otherwise. Now while you Angles may wallop all the cods you like, simply stating that something does not constitute evidence is not good enough, no siree, even producing counter claims is not good enough, you must address the evidence yourself and subject it to falsification, what is left standing, can be evaluated.