Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Aeson]

Perhaps you'd best start taking a different approach, Aeson.

I enjoy how this is going. You say something dishonest and/or ignorant, and I call you dishonest and/or ignorant. Then you respond with something dishonest and/or ignorant so we can continue.

Dismissing an argument you dislike does nothing to address the points that I am making. Merely asserting, "this is completely irrelevant" doesn't change the fact that yes, this is quite relevant.

No it was not relevant.

Then explain to me what it means?

That would be the portion of the response you quoted from ... which you didn't quote and are now dishonestly and/or ignorantly claiming wasn't included in the response.

"The reality is to "be with" someone can be many different things, in a constant state of flux, and what defines it in that moment for that couple is what the two people "being with" each other decide it should be. Your knee-jerk depiction of it as a binary "sex or no sex unchangeable forever" was clearly a dishonest and/or ignorant misrepresentation of how "be with" had been used." - Aeson, explaining the thing BK dishonestly and/or ignorantly claims was not explained.

I asked you what it meant and you refused to answer.

I answered.

You keep saying that you reject what the Church teaches and then kept trying to dodge the truth - that the Church rejects sinful actions, not sinful people. That's the core of the dispute here.

No, that's your strawman.

You believe that a person IS what a person DOES and I believe the opposite, that a person has an identity separate from what they do.

No, you are making a new dishonest and/or ignorant strawman here. "A person is what a person does" does not accurately describe what I believe in that regard.

Then answer the question. What does it mean?

See above, or previous post where that was explained. Try to not dishonestly and/or ignorantly cut out the portion where I explain what it means.

You do have a beef with the Catholic church and what the Church teaches, Aeson. Am I lying when I say that?

You are being dishonest and/or ignorant to bring up this issue as a strawman.

I agree and disagree with various things taught by the Catholic church, to various extents. I could say the same thing for most entities.

Since you seem to care very much what I think about your Catholic faith, I will say that I have met many Catholics who have a beautiful faith that leads them to be admirable people whether viewed from the Catholic faith, or outside it.

You on the other hand are a despicable person, consistently dishonest and/or ignorant, and try to hide that disgusting nature behind the Catholic church. When you say something verifiably false, and then try to pretend that responses pointing that out are demeaning of the Catholic church, you are the one attacking the Catholic church by pretending your lies or ignorance are what the Catholic church teaches.

As always, whatever Ben does is ridiculous, ignorant or whatever. Yawn.

Would make a good sig... But again it is a dishonest and/or ignorant depiction of what I am saying, since you forgot to say "dishonest and/or ignorant" and instead said just "ignorant".

Then you concede the point.

No. You are just being dishonest and/or ignorant by pretending that implications cannot be made.

You're the only one going on with ad-hominem attacks.

I prefer to think of them as accurate assessments of your argument style. Yes, they are derogatory, but that is because being dishonest and/or ignorant is not a good thing.

Ah. Well then I stand convinced that we have a honest difference of opinion. I'm amused that you think me saying this is 'dishonest'.

Again, you are being dishonest and/or ignorant to phrase it as simply dishonest, as I have said "dishonest and/or ignorant".

We have different opinions for sure. But those things we have discussed are not opinions. Such as whether I said "dishonest and/or ignorant" or just "dishonest" or just "ignorant" ... that is a matter of public record.

Who died and made you king? Opinions you disagree with don't lose or gain merit just because you think so.

I am final arbiter of how much merit I determine you deserve. You seem to be worried about what merit I give you, so I explained to you the method by which you could receive that merit.

You are dishonestly and/or ignorantly pretending the discussion is just one of opinion. The disagreements are in regards to verifiable facts (whether I said "dishonest and/or ignorant" or just "ignorant" or just "dishonest"), my use of terms (how "be with" was used when I wrote it), or if the logic behind "knowing someone said something dishonest and/or ignorant, you must know what an honest person would have said" holds up. As well as many other less central verifiable facts (whether I gave an answer, whether I explained what was meant by "be with", etc.)

You are simply wrong about the verifiable facts. Your logic is easily shown to not be applicable to reality.

Apparently me saying so is 'dishonest'.

Dishonest and/or ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

He'll probably waffle some more and keep saying it's "rational" to be racist if a black person robbed you

What waffling? I said the exact same thing in the thread. I would expect someone who's been mugged by a black person to be angry at black folks in general. It's not exactly difficult to put the dots together. If I were to meet someone like that, my first question would be, "what has happened to make this person feel this way?" Generally it's not hard to figure out.

Every person I've met in my life who has had issues along these lines has turned out to have really solid reasons for behaving the way that they do.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am not going to let you sidetrack this any further. My opinions about the Catholic church, except as they pertain to the Church's stance on marriage, are not relevant to this discussion.

Given that the topic of this thread is gay marriage. I'm going to ask again. Do you believe that gay marriage is a mistake that the Catholic church must correct? It's funny, you get a little bit of real truth slip out and then it crawls back when you realize the repercussions of what you just said.

they would be completely irrelevant to the discussion

Funny. Everytime we get an argument you don't like you dismiss it by saying, "that's irrelevant". If the abuse scandal in the Catholic church is relevant than so are the abuse statistics for gay partnerships.

Why not actually deal with the points rather than simply trying to shake the etch a sketch?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hi Aeson:

I'm gonna count all the ad-hominems.

1.

You on the other hand are a despicable person

2.

Dishonest and/or ignorant.

3.

you are being dishonest and/or ignorant

4.

"dishonest and/or ignorant".

5.

are now dishonestly and/or ignorantly

6.

You say something dishonest and/or ignorant

7.

dishonest and/or ignorant

8.

dishonest and/or ignorant

9.

dishonest and/or ignorant

10.

dishonest and/or ignorant

Such as whether I said "dishonest and/or ignorant" or just "dishonest" or just "ignorant" ... that is a matter of public record.

Maybe I just got tired of typing it 17 times in one post.

[loinburger]

Do you believe that group punishment is appropriate?

[giblets]

What waffling? I said the exact same thing in the thread. I would expect someone who's been mugged by a black person to be angry at black folks in general. It's not exactly difficult to put the dots together. If I were to meet someone like that, my first question would be, "what has happened to make this person feel this way?" Generally it's not hard to figure out.

Every person I've met in my life who has had issues along these lines has turned out to have really solid reasons for behaving the way that they do.

That's not a reasonable expectation. If you hate black people in general and your justification is that a black person mugged you once, there's something wrong with you mentally. Stop defending collective punishment.

[Aeson]

What waffling? I said the exact same thing in the thread. I would expect someone who's been mugged by a black person to be angry at black folks in general. It's not exactly difficult to put the dots together. If I were to meet someone like that, my first question would be, "what has happened to make this person feel this way?" Generally it's not hard to figure out.

You are being dishonest and/or ignorant in the portrayal of what you said. You didn't just say you would "expect" them to feel that way ... you said you wouldn't consider it to be prejudice.

[loinburger]

I'm gonna count all the ad-hominems.

If somebody who is morally incompetent (you) is making moral judgments (homosexuality is sinful, etc), then it is appropriate to point out that the moral incompetent is not qualified to enter the debate. Prove that you're morally competent rather than whining about "ad hominems."

[loinburger]

Do you believe that group punishment is appropriate?

I know that you're keen on dodging questions, so I'll take silence as an affirmative

[Aeson]

Well then, good luck with that Aeson, as I see no point in discussing anything with someone who is unwilling to even suggest that you have an argument.

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to suggest I am unwilling to even suggest that you have an argument. I have noted you have arguments, which his necessarily a prerequisite for making my own counter-argument that your arguments are dishonest and/or ignorant.

I have also detailed a method by which you can make arguments which are deemed worthy of merit by me. Many people on this forum and in real life have availed of this option, by simply making honest and/or not ignorant arguments.

Call me when you're ready to actually discuss rather than stating, "that's irrelevant" or "that's dishonest".

Claiming all I am doing is saying "that's irrelevant" or "that's dishonest" is dishonest and/or ignorant on your part.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson, I've snipped things because there's actually some good stuff in there, and I'd like to focus on that rather than the 10+ personal attacks.

"The reality is to "be with" someone can be many different things, in a constant state of flux

Finally. We get a real answer that's not a personal attack, that's actually cogent and contributes to the discussion. However the problem is that the answer contains no useful information.

If, as you say, the "Catholic church prevents people from being with each other", what does that mean? That the Catholic church prohibits certain activities? That the Catholic church hates dark chocolate but not white chocolate? The statement that "the Catholic church prevents people from being with each other" means nothing.

However, here's what you really mean but aren't willing to say. "People should be free to live their lives however they want and the Catholic church shouldn't have any role in telling them no. If the Catholic church tells them no, that's wrong. They are opposing personal autonomy."

I don't think that's inaccurate, but please correct me if this is wrong.

Now, here's my argument. If you sincerely believe that freedom should be at the top of the "what is Good" pile, I am going to ask you a question.

Do you believe that it is a moral good for people to be voluntarily celibate?

depiction of it as a binary "sex or no sex unchangeable forever"

Your argument is that the Catholic church somehow prevents people from, "being together". The problem with this argument is that it does not. The Catholic church says that some specific actions are off-limits, not all of them.

Are you arguing that the Catholic church should draw a different line? Then it's not really an argument that the Catholic church is necessarily against them 'being together', but rather that the Catholic church explicitly teaches that certain actions are wrong.

that the Church rejects sinful actions, not sinful people. That's the core of the dispute here.

Ok, I have to ask then, do you believe that the Church rejects sinful actions and not sinful people?

You are being dishonest and/or ignorant to bring up this issue as a strawman.

Quite the opposite. You have significant issues with Church teachings, especially on the area of gay marriage, is relevant to the discussion. It's also not a strawman if it's true. You've said it before, many times. You support gay marriage.

I agree and disagree with various things taught by the Catholic church, to various extents.

You have issues with the Catholic church, specifically with regards to her teachings on the sacrament of marriage. Which is wholly relevant to this thread discussing just that, what the Catholic church teaches on marriage. It's no strawman, Aeson.

Since you seem to care very much what I think about your Catholic faith, I will say that I have met many Catholics who have a beautiful faith that leads them to be admirable people whether viewed from the Catholic faith, or outside it.

Nope, don't care what you think about my faith. I do care quite a bit about what you believe about the Catholic church. Those are two different things.

You on the other hand are a despicable person, consistently dishonest and/or ignorant, and try to hide that disgusting nature behind the Catholic church.

Finally. If I'm hiding behind the Catholic church, why don't you post what I really believe? You have it all in your head, and I suggest you come right out and say it.

When you say something verifiably false

What verifiably false statement have I made?

you are the one attacking the Catholic church by pretending your lies or ignorance are what the Catholic church teaches.

If I'm wrong on what the Catholic church teaches about gay marriage, the topic of this thread, feel free to show me where I'm wrong.

I prefer to think of them as accurate assessments of your argument style. Yes, they are derogatory, but that is because being dishonest and/or ignorant is not a good thing.

Why are you indulging in derogatory statements? It doesn't help your case.

We have different opinions for sure. But those things we have discussed are not opinions.

The disagreements are in regards to verifiable facts (whether I said "dishonest and/or ignorant" or just "ignorant" or just "dishonest"), my use of terms (how "be with" was used when I wrote it), or if the logic behind "knowing someone said something dishonest and/or ignorant, you must know what an honest person would have said" holds up. As well as many other less central verifiable facts (whether I gave an answer, whether I explained what was meant by "be with", etc.)

Not a single thing in there is a verifiable fact, and nothing in this is actually cogent to the real discussion here.

We have great differences in some fundamental principles. I'd much rather discuss those then whatever he said - she said spiral you're on about.

You're right, I think the disagreement is more than just opinions, I think the disagreement is deeper than that - but what I meant by stating that the difference is one of opinions - is that both of us have reasons for what we believe even if we disagree. I didn't state it in order to state, "well that's just your opinion", I think it's worthwhile to actually hash out some of this.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not a reasonable expectation. If you hate black people in general and your justification is that a black person mugged you once, there's something wrong with you mentally. Stop defending collective punishment.

I said, and I repeat myself that I am not surprised when someone says this or that they hold this opinion. I would expect that.

I also repeat, for those of you playing at home, you do recall I don't believe that human nature is good? I believe that human beings are sinful. I also don't believe that what is rational is necessarily right.

You may believe that, I do not. When I am saying that "X is rational" I am saying that, "X has a reasonable justification behind his actions." I can understand the train of thought as to how X leads to Y.

Hurting people leads to hurt people who carry those hurts over many years. They have a significant influence over how that person interacts with people in general and people in specific. I am not arguing that I personally would respond that way, only that there is a good explanation as to why.

Talk to a psychologist. They will agree with me.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know that you're keen on dodging questions, so I'll take silence as an affirmative

Answer my question.

Do you believe that what the Catholic church teaches on gay marriage is something that the Church must change?

If somebody who is morally incompetent (you) is making moral judgments (homosexuality is sinful, etc)

I didn't invent Christianity - it's not MY religion. It's not Kenobism, and nor is this my opinion. It's in the Bible - the Bible says that Jesus taught that marriage was between one man and one woman.

[loinburger]

How about this: if you say that you believe that group punishment is a grand idea, then I'll put you on ignore forever and ever because there's really not much point in my continuing to attempt to converse with you. If you don't believe that group punishment is a grand idea, then stop advocating for the application of group punishment to groups that you dislike.

A promise is a promise - if you can't even provide a straight answer as to whether you advocate collective punishment then clearly you're an advocate of collective punishment (especially given your claims that e.g. all homosexuals should be barred from adopting children if a subset of homosexuals abuse children). I really was hoping that you were merely ignorant, as opposed to hopeless.

[Ben Kenobi]

if you can't even provide a straight answer

You first Loinburger. I'm surprised you've not answered something that I think should be a total, obvious yes. But then, people always surprise me.