Originally posted by stellspalfiemust we stop to kick every dog that barks at us? Caravan trundles on.
your default deflection of any criticism to cry 'ad hominem'. crying this doesnt take away the truth of whats being said.
you have made several mistake, you. its impossible to draw attention to this without mentioning you. your repeatedly ignoring the criticism only provides more criticism, what purpose does it serve to ignore the criticism??? cry 'a ...[text shortened]... he paper, you trusted the stats without examining them from their source. all your mistakes.
Originally posted by stellspalfieanother attempt to get personal, the dogs howl at dusk and the little caravan trundles on.
the other really strange thing is im not even suggesting here that your original assertions are wrong. you can still argue homosexuals shouldnt adopt. the issues here do not support or disprove anything. all im trying to achieve here is an understanding that if we provide incorrect information and cite it as evidence, that like any other sensible adults ...[text shortened]... imes going on im starting to see the truth in what ive been told by others and that i was naive.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobierobbie jnr's teacher at school -
another attempt to get personal, the dogs howl at dusk and the little caravan trundles on.
'robbie jnr im afraid ive given you an 'f' for your science report, you have used an inappropriate website to provide evidence of your claims, unfortunately it means you have misunderstood the nature of the study we were looking at'
robbie jnr -
'no i havent'
teacher -
'yes, sorry but it was a huge mistake, look, this is why its wrong, youve totally misunderstood the project, can you see why now?'
robbie jnr -
'why are you making this personal!!!!!'
i hope you are passing on your skills robbie.
Originally posted by stellspalfietrundle trundle
robbie jnr's teacher at school -
'robbie jnr im afraid ive given you an 'f' for your science report, you have used an inappropriate website to provide evidence of your claims, unfortunately it means you have misunderstood the nature of the study we were looking at'
robbie jnr -
'no i havent'
teacher -
'yes, sorry but it was a huge mistak ...[text shortened]... are you making this personal!!!!!'
i hope you are passing on your skills robbie.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhen you knock on peoples door and ask them if they want to hear about jehovah. can these people trust you? are you an honest man? if an occasion should arise in which you have given them wrong council can they be sure that you have christ in your heart enough to be honest???
trundle trundle
Originally posted by stellspalfieI try very hard to be diplomatic and refrain from getting personal, i am a stranger on their door step, uninvited, i have no reason to get personal with them, trundle trundle
when you knock on peoples door and ask them if they want to hear about jehovah. can these people trust you? are you an honest man? if an occasion should arise in which you have given them wrong council can they be sure that you have christ in your heart enough to be honest???
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei didnt ask if you were going to move in and get them to call you daddy. i asked how can they trust you? if you conduct yourself like this in the real world how can potential converts know they can rely on you to speak honestly about your faith?
I try very hard to be diplomatic and refrain from getting personal, i am a stranger on their door step, uninvited, i have no reason to get personal with them, trundle trundle
how can you take the moral high ground on any subject if you cant even get a simple thing like honesty correct. surely of all the qualities jehovah seeks in man to qualify him for a passage to his kingdom on earth then being honest must be the easiest? what on earth is jesus or god thinking when they look at something a simple and non-important as this and look at your behavior? is jesus gonna pat you on the back and say well done robbie, never admit to anything thats how jesus roles.
3 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieconduct myself like what? have i insulted you? have i termed you egotistical, materialistic, dishonest, incapable of rational thought? but you have said these very things about me, which is fine, it happens, it really is the best that you can do, I understand that getting personal is where its at for you, for me its simply empty and devoid, but each to their own, trundle trundle.
i didnt ask if you were going to move in and get them to call you daddy. i asked how can they trust you? if you conduct yourself like this in the real world how can potential converts know they can rely on you to speak honestly about your faith?
how can you take the moral high ground on any subject if you cant even get a simple thing like honesty cor ...[text shortened]... nna pat you on the back and say well done robbie, never admit to anything thats how jesus roles.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou dont think their is anything wrong with not admitting you were wrong? especially when asked? every time ive asked you have denied wrong doing, even when ive provided evidence.
conduct myself like what? have i insulted you? have i termed you egotistical, materialistic, dishonest, incapable of rational thought? but you have said these very things about me, which is fine, it happens, it really is the best that you can do, I understand that getting personal is where its at for you, for me its simply empty and devoid, but each to their own, trundle trundle.
if your kids did something wrong and denied it when asked, would you not see that as bad behavior?
you wanted to continue with the debate, all i wanted to know first before answering your questions about morality was a sign that you understood your mistake, so later on i would know you wouldnt keep referring to it as 'evidence' as you had already done several times.
i was also keen to impress on you the morality of pasting articles that are clearly misrepresenting the truth (especially on sensitive subjects). you didnt seem to care that the article was wrong, you didnt seem to care that you may be perpetuating wrong thinking by declaring the article as 'evidence'.
do you not see any of this as conducting yourself in a poor way. either you know you are wrong but wont admit it. or you dont know you are wrong and dont understand the moral implications....which is a bit scary. either way its all rather odd, hence the comments about your personality. as it seems your personality is the key factor here to either why you wont admit error or dont see any error or immoral behavior.
Originally posted by stellspalfieseeing that you literally seem incapable of doing anything other then getting personal, there is nothing i want to say to you, if you wish to attack the data the fine, if you wish to call into question the motives of certain reports then fine, its your business, but you simply cannot leave it at that and this is not the first time that you need to be reeled in, throughout this saga you were in need of being constantly reminded, Robbie is not the report, the report and Robbie are not synonymous, do you understand, i very much doubt it, for if you had then you would not be continually harping on about irrelevancies like some gossiping old housewife.
you dont think their is anything wrong with not admitting you were wrong? especially when asked? every time ive asked you have denied wrong doing, even when ive provided evidence.
if your kids did something wrong and denied it when asked, would you not see that as bad behavior?
you wanted to continue with the debate, all i wanted to know first be ...[text shortened]... y factor here to either why you wont admit error or dont see any error or immoral behavior.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiein what way have i accused you of being the report?
seeing that you literally seem incapable of doing anything other then getting personal, there is nothing i want to say to you, if you wish to attack the data the fine, if you wish to call into question the motives of certain reports then fine, its your business, but you simply cannot leave it at that and this is not the first time that you need to be ...[text shortened]... n you would not be continually harping on about irrelevancies like some gossiping old housewife.
1. you put forward the article as evidence.
if the article is wrong, then you should hold your hands up and admit you shouldnt have used it as evidence.
2. you refuse to admit that you have done anything wrong.
this is where it gets personal. it is you, your personality that cannot accept your mistake.
3. morality of putting forward wrong evidence.
if i found a website that said jesus was a rapist and it provided evidence that i thought was good. you would quickly put me right and explain why the evidence is wrong. if i continued to refer to the article as evidence even though i know its wrong. i would be being immoral. i would be spreading misinformation purely to support my opinion of jesus is 'bad' regardless of the truth. if you pulled me up on it and i reply 'its not my fault its the websites for calling him a rapist' you would quite rightly think im an idiot. you would expect me to check my sources and make sure i have a strong case based on the evidence before i start saying jesus is a rapist. if i repeatedly showed no acknowledgement for my error, you would be left with the uncertainty that i might still think jesus is a rapist based on the dodgy site i looked at. which would leave you wondering if i was trolling, stubborn, or just plain nuts.
i
5 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfiesorry point out to me again which part of the report was wrong (your opinion), as far as i can discern all you have done is what you usually do, give your opinion as some kind of self certifiable truth, lets see, you claimed that the the reasons i gave did not mention anything to do with adoption, a falsehood, reason number three,
in what way have i accused you of being the report?
1. you put forward the article as evidence.
if the article is wrong, then you should hold your hands up and admit you shouldnt have used it as evidence.
2. you refuse to admit that you have done anything wrong.
this is where it gets personal. it is you, your personality that cannot accept ed at. which would leave you wondering if i was trolling, stubborn, or just plain nuts.
i
It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
you claimed that it was merely opinion, another falsehood, when it as pointed out to you that it contained statistics you were made to make a retraction and include some kind of proviso, prior to that all you could do was call into question its motives for being written and went on some tirade about irrelevancies without ever actually addressing the content, falsehood number two,
to the paper of animal homosexuality you said, here were your words, you could cut and paste millions of pages from right wing propaganda websites full of pseudo science
made without addressing a single piece of content. Absolutely meaningless drivel, and utter hypocrisy of someone that seemingly doesn't like to answer questions although likes to ask them and cannot make a single reference to the actual evidence that is presented, except to voice a bloated opinion. You somehow managed also to ignore ten reasons that were presented against homosexual marriage in similar derisive tones and here you are moralising about behavior, you complete hypocrite.
Then we had the usual and completely banal attempt to insinuate homophobia, pathetic.
when asked if your support for gay rights was moral you had no interest in morality and here you are somehow transformed and feigning a sudden interest in morality, as long as its not yours that is, hypocrite.
so lets ask you again and see if you can make an actual reference to the actual content contained in the actual study and how it differs from the report.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell done, im pleased you are at least trying to discuss it. there is a lot to reply on and again i would like to stress - im not trying to catch you out, i would like us to reach a point where there is no game playing and just honesty. so i will try to answer all your points, if i miss anything, remind me and ill answer it.
sorry point out to me again which part of the report was wrong (your opinion), as far as i can discern all you have done is what you usually do, give your opinion as some kind of self certifiable truth, lets see, you claimed that the the reasons i gave did not mention anything to do with adoption, a falsehood, reason number three,
It Always Denie ference to the actual content contained in the actual study and how it differs from the report.
1. before tackling your points, there is one key thing i would like to stress - my main issue has been the 1st report you posted. yet you have not mentioned it in your reply. could you explain if you feel mistakes were made by you there?
the first report.
this was my main issue and the focus of nearly all of my replies as it was the most pertinent to the debate. the points i raised here were not opinion, they were fact, i have produced evidence proving this. i have lots more evidence if you would like to read it. the the actual paper is free on the internet. the author himself concludes in the paper that his findings do not prove anything. his peers and superiors have written articles condemning his methods, it is a fact. i asked you what you thought the paper was about, you said 'gay adoption' the paper is about children who have had a gay parent, adoption is not discussed as there is currently not enough evidence, as mentioned by the author, fact, no argument. if you misunderstood the meaning of the study..........is this not an error?
your 10 points about gay marriage.
i was asking you about gay parents adopting. the 10 points do not mention gay parents adopting. fact. even the bit you cut and pasted in your last reply as evidence doesnt mention gay parents adopting.
It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
it contains opinions about the order of preference of parenting, but it makes no comments about the results or effects of gay adoption.
im happy to discuss the 10 points that you posted, but they are not evidence just opinions. but im also happy to discuss opinions. the reason i have not responded to them so far is that the discussion between myself and you was about gay adoption, you put that up as evidence against gay adoption after i had asked you 'what happens to kids that are adopted by homosexuals' you list doesnt answer that question.
i feel we should tackle the points that came up first, rather than skip them and on to points that were changing the direction of the debate.
if you look back, i have not criticized the content of the 10pnts post, i have only said they were not relevant to the questions i was asking you.
so once again, if we ever get this sorted i am happy to answer any question you would like to field about gay marriage and parenting.
you have it in writing.
the animal homo-sex
this article i referred to a couple of times. i referred to this as you were making the same mistake as the 1st paper. you were citing something as 'evidence' without doing any critical analysis.
to be fair i did just offer my opinion that the content was wrong, but i had already spent a lot of time reading the 1st paper and its corresponding articles. i didnt want to invest time in this one, especially if you dont care if its correct or not, which is the impression you were giving at the time regarding the 1st study
as it was an article rather than a peer reviewed paper, and as the author holds no qualifications in the field of study and has strong affiliations with organisations that have a vested interest in proving homosexuality is wrong. the article fails all the key points in a critical analysis. now dont get me wrong, failing a critical analysis doesnt always make the information wrong, it means we cannot trust the information as fact. which means if we have no indication the article is trustworthy it shouldnt be put forward as 'evidence'. this is how it works. this article makes your first article actually look okay in comparison.
still, im fine in admitting i didnt come back to the points raised in this article. as ive said im happy to come back to anything you want, once we have got past this issue. until then i dont feel i can trust your motivations.
if there is anything i have missed that you feel need clarification, then ask away. the subjects of homosexual parenting and adoption in general are very important to me. so i want to make sure we are totally clear.
i am also happy to discuss the morality of gay rights. as your questions came up after the sticking points im not willing to move on until we have these issues cleared, to understand each other we need to be honest and your reluctance to admit error gives me the feeling that there is no point in debating. if you go on to make valid points and im open and say 'okay i accept that' i dont get the feeling that it will be reciprocated, which makes debating pointless.
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieWhen you can make reference to the actual content of the article and demonstrate that the link i posted was wrong and that it cannot therefore be cited as evidence and that i am therefore dishonest and a morally corruptible person unfit to tell others about Gods Kingdom as you have insinuated then please do so. The link I provided has three references, the article itself, the actual report the article was based upon and a reference to Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes.
well done, im pleased you are at least trying to discuss it. there is a lot to reply on and again i would like to stress - im not trying to catch you out, i would like us to reach a point where there is no game playing and just honesty. so i will try to answer all your points, if i miss anything, remind me and ill answer it.
1. before tackling your ' i dont get the feeling that it will be reciprocated, which makes debating pointless.
There was no dishonesty and no attempt to do anything other than provide evidence for a claim, your insinuations to the contrary are ludicrous.
2 edits
from the actual report,
The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.
complied by, Mark Regnerus, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States
your claim was that there is no difference, so either you are posting falsehoods or the good people in the sociology department of Texas university are.