Hello everybody

[Ming]

If I'm 95 percent correct, does that make your objection a substantive one?

BS... you claimed that single people couldn't adopt... you are WRONG. They can and they do.
Point, Match, Set...

[dannubis]

Point set match...

[Ben Kenobi]

you claimed that single people couldn't adopt... you are WRONG. They can and they do.
Point, Match, Set...

Very infrequently, and it's much more difficult for them to do so. Especially if you happen to be a man. I wonder why that is. Ming isn't willing to comment on the elephant in the room here, which is pretty much par for the course.

[molly bloom]

And I say that there is a comparison between the two. Gosh. I guess it's settled then.

Nope- because all you've done is make a spurious comparison between one aspect of slavery and a possible punishment if you don't pay taxes.

I said that imprisonment for owing taxes is similar to the punishment endured by slaves

But it isn't- since slaves were already lacking any freedom to make a choice- if you are punished for non-payment of taxes, it is because you have exercised your free will not to pay a tax- in the knowledge that there may be a risk of imprisonment or a fine if you do not do so. The state doesn't tax on a whim- it's part of a social contract.

that involuntary confinement, work programs, assault within prisons, etc is similar to the treatment of slaves

Oh my. Sometimes it's like swimming through molasses with your thought processes. Assault within a prison is not a given- and it isn't a feature of taxation, or the punishment for non-payment of taxes.

Involuntary confinement is the risk you run if you exercise a choice not to pay taxes- your free will. Slaves- especially those born into slavery- had no free will to exercise, no choice that could be made without running the risk of death or mutilation. Slaves didnt have 'work programmes'- they had unpaid forced labour, and in some cases that included the provision of sexual intercourse. The state hardly enforces that as a punishment for non-payment of taxes.

The fact that I don't have control over my body, because I have to pay a tax on money that I have earned.

Right- so along with the taxes, the taxman visits your place of residence and arbitrarily lops off a foot, or whips you until the skin is flayed from your back, or sells you to somebody in Barbados. Control over your physical body and payment of tax on earnings are two entirely different things.

Then perhaps Canada can stop persecuting my faith, and we'll call it even.

Irrelevant, hysterical, and unproven. I'm tired of your pathetic martyr complex- the Roman Catholic Church enjoys a privileged position in Canada, and unlike Christians in Eritrea, or northern Nigeria, or Iraq, you aren't in peril of your life if you happen to be a professing Roman Catholic in Canada. Grow up, and try to think of those Christians who are risking their lives for their faith.

There's no point arguing with you- you're so lacking in logic and genuine compassion for people who are suffering that you make the most ludicrous comparisons and can't even see how offensive they are. Perhaps if you feel so hard done by, as a refugee from the religion persecuting state of Canada (!!!) you should apply for asylum in the United States ? And as you consider paying taxes to be like slavery, why not get Amnesty International to take up your cause ?

Poor St Ben of the Martyr Complex.

[Wezil]

Catholics are so persecuted in Ontario they get their own publicly funded school system. No other religion is so persecuted in this province.

edit - And NO Ben, this was not an invitation to debate.

[Dauphin]

,

Then it would behoove rah, since this is his argument to cite this number in particular. He has not.

Actually it would behoove you to stop making **** up.

[Dauphin]

Not for Ben, but it may be of interest to others....

http://www.cwla.org/programs/adoption/adoptionfactsheet2.htm

Research in the 1970s found that an estimated .5% to 4% of persons completing adoptions were single. Studies in the 1980s found from 8% to 34% of adopters were single. (Stolley, 1993)

The ranges are based on highs and lows for US states, as far as I can tell, looking at the studies quoted in google books.

[Ming]

Very infrequently, and it's much more difficult for them to do so. Especially if you happen to be a man. I wonder why that is. Ming isn't willing to comment on the elephant in the room here, which is pretty much par for the course.

And you aren't willing to comment on the fact that you were wrong yet again.... but no surprise there.
Ben get's proven wrong and he just changes the argument... Nice try.
YOU WERE WRONG

[Wezil]

So can we stop debating with him now?

Please?

[Dauphin]

I find him quite a good educational tool. He makes **** up, and you look up the truth out of curiosity, and then you can feed back to everyone what the truth actually is.

[Wezil]

I find his posts to be the equivalent of dog crap. You can't venture into some threads now without getting **** on your shoes.

[Flubber]

If I'm 95 percent correct, does that make your objection a substantive one?

.

Ben you are hilarious

1, You say we do not permit single people to adopt ( that would be an assertion of 0% would it not??)

2. Rah says -- ahem -- it is permitted-- in fact 5% of adoptions are by single people

3. You try to change the argument saying thats not enough or you are 95% correct. We could reverse that-- If you had asserted single people made up 1% of adoptions, you would have been 500% percent wrong using "reverse Kenobi math". How wrong were you since your assertion was that they were not permitted to adopt AT ALL??



Oh and your last post aimed at me made no sense at all. Are you resorting to vaguenes?
My simple request is that if you respond to me, please deal with what I say. Your usual methodology of trying to restate others arguments into something that is incorrrect is tired.

The simplest example is here with your adoption point with rah. You are trying to restate the issue as being about a preference for couples or some other nonesense which had nothing to do with ANYTHING rah said. Ths little subpoint was easy. You made a statement which was wrong, verifiably wrong. Rah said you were wrong and pointed out that 1 in 20 adoptions were by people that you said were not perrmitted.

So unless you can disprove his 5% number, grow a pair, admit you were wrong and move on. But you won't do that Ben will you ?

[Ben Kenobi]

The ranges are based on highs and lows for US states, as far as I can tell, looking at the studies quoted in google books.

8 to 34 percent? So what you're telling me is that they don't really have a clue. That really increases my confidence here.

[Ben Kenobi]

I find his posts to be the equivalent of dog crap. You can't venture into some threads now without getting **** on your shoes.

Didn't you get banned over stalking me? That was actually rather funny. You know, as much as you hate me, you always show up in my threads.

[Ben Kenobi]

1, You say we do not permit single people to adopt ( that would be an assertion of 0% would it not??)

I asked Rah why there is such a difference between single people and married people wrt to adoption. He goes on to prove my point by stating that 5 percent of the total adoptions are single people, and that almost all of them, are with older kids in foster homes (as opposed to infants), those who they are having difficulty finding people to adopt. My point being, that if there is another alternative, most, if not all adoption services prefer to have two parents over one. This is basic common sense. Whether it's 5 or 0 makes no difference.

Nikolai understood my point perfectly. So did rah, which is why he's making the argument that he is doing. Everyone is so bound and determined to 'prove me wrong', that they are willing to confirm me far more right than wrong.

When Rah admits that I was entirely correct here, then we can move on.

Oh and your last post aimed at me made no sense at all. Are you resorting to vaguenes?

So because you don't understand me, that's my fault? Maybe you should be asking me to clarify for you so that you'll understand.

I thanked you for your advice earlier in the thread, and then you dumped all over me. Wow. Thanks Flubber. I'll make sure not to thank you again, because kindness isn't appreciated by you.