Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[giblets]

Avoid dangerous areas at night. Great, you've figured out how to avoid being a victim of a crime and realized race isn't important. I have no idea why you're still defending racism

[Aeson]

Finally. We get a real answer that's not a personal attack, that's actually cogent and contributes to the discussion.

It was copy-pasted from a previous response which you had quoted from. It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to insinuate it wasn't there previously.

However the problem is that the answer contains no useful information.

I can see how it's not useful to you to have the answer you claimed had not been made pointed out as having been made. It's also not useful for you to have the real use of the words "be with", as you had dishonestly and/or ignorantly used your own ridiculously stupid definitions to try to describe what I and giblets had said.

If, as you say, the "Catholic church prevents people from being with each other", what does that mean?

I haven't said that. You are ignorantly and/or dishonestly implying claiming that I did.

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."

You are ignorantly and/or dishonestly claiming to know what I meant when I didn't say the thing you ignorantly and/or dishonestly claim I said.

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

It is wrong. You dishonestly and/or ignorantly created a statement, you dishonestly and/or ignorantly pretended you knew what I "really meant" by your created statement, and the whole topic of the created statement is simply a strawman you dishonestly and/or ignorantly threw up.

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.

You dishonestly and/or ignorantly asked the question before I confirmed what I sincerely believe. The implication is that you dishonestly and/or ignorantly think you have confirmed that is what I sinncerely believe. You are wrong.

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

There are too many potential confounding variables to give a good answer to this question. You need to define "moral good", which people are volunteering to be celibate, why they are doing so, and what the outcome (to their person and to others) of their choices will be. The last prerequisite is of course impossible, which is why I don't deem it necessary to worry about whether a person choosing celibacy is doing a moral good or not. It's impossible to say.

Your argument is that the Catholic church somehow prevents people from, "being together".

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to claim that is my argument when it is not my argument or even something I would argue.

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.

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to imply that is my argument when it is not my argument or even something I would argue.

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

Since you asked I would wager that the Catholic Church via it's official representatives throughout history have done at least some of both.

You support gay marriage.

I support legalizing gay marriage. This is a matter of law, not of religion. I support the right for the Catholic church to n ot have to perform gay weddings. Just as I support their right to not allow Net and I to get married within the Church. I disagree with them on both counts, but their right teach what they believe is what matters.

It's no strawman, Aeson.

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to claim your strawman is not a strawman.

Nope, don't care what you think about my faith.

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to pretend you don't care when your very next statement is to try to get me to outline what I think about your faith.

"If I'm hiding behind the Catholic church, why don't you post what I really believe?" - BK being BK

If I'm hiding behind the Catholic church, why don't you post what I really believe?

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to misreprent what I said with "hiding behind the Catholic church", especially after it had already been explained to you.

It wasn't in relation to what you believe, but rather how you act. When you dishonestly and/or ignorantly misconstrued "be with" to be something other than it was used as, I notified you of that. You then decided to throw up the Catholic church as a strawman rather than address your dishonest and/or ignorant use of "be with". You were hiding your dishonesty and/or ignorance behind the Catholic church, pretending that by my pointing out your dishonesty and/or ignorance that I was taking issue with the Catholic church. You've continued your dishonesty and/or ignorance in this regard even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that I was addressing your method of argument, not what the Catholic church teaches.

This is something you do all the time. Throw up the Catholic church as a strawman to hide behind rather than address criticisms of your own actions.

What verifiably false statement have I made?

I have pointed out numerous cases. The claim I was arguing about "stats". The claim I meant "only sex" by "be with". The claim I meant "platonic only" by "be with". The claim I used "dishonesty" alone when I had used "dishonesty and/or ignorance". The claim I used "ignorance" alone when I had used "dishonesty and/or ignorance". We could go on and on.

Also your logic you posted does not hold up, as is readily demonstrable.

These are verifiable as the text is there to read.

Why are you indulging in derogatory statements?

It is necessary to accurately describe what you are doing.

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

It is dishonest and/or ignorant of you to claim that what has been said in this thread is not a verifiable fact.

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.

We are discussing one of them. You think dishonest and/or ignorant arguments are ok to use in serious discussion. Like when you make up things which haven't been said to argue against, or when you change "dishonest and/or ignorant" in regards to a specific statement to just "dishonest" in regards to all statements you have ever made or will ever make so you can make your stupid logical conundrum.

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.

It is worthwhile because it's funny to me to watch you contort and twist and throw up absurd arguments in response.

[Aeson]

Which is why I don't think acting on those feelings is rational. But I think it's really hard for the person to separate the reminder of what happened to them, with the truth that this person hasn't done anything to them.

Especially if the mugger was a random attack and a stranger. I don't know - it's just been my experience that folks who have been hurt carry those hurts for a long time and it influences them even in ways they might not necessarily be aware of them.

You said it wasn't prejudice. It is prejudice. Just accept that you were wrong and move on.

[Aeson]

I'm gonna count all the ad-hominems.

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

I think you missed quite a few. Also, I have lots more. As long as you make dishonest and/or ignorant arguments they are well deserved.

[Sava]

Just ban the **** already

[I AM MOBIUS]

Ben seriously must be the most pitiful (note: not pitiable!) person I have ever come across ever!

I mean, here is a person who has just broken the 40,000 post barrier here on poly. Even if each of his posts took on average only a minute to post, we're talking an investment of 666 (how apt!) hours recurring of solid time spent posting on this site - and we know that that has to be a massively conservative estimate given the average content size of his posts - not to mention the time thinking them up - or reading the responses of others...

We're talking a total probable investment of weeks, if not months, of time here - and for what...!?

For virtually the entire rest of the forum to treat him with the contempt that he deserves so utterly.

The fact is that we can see completely and totally through every facet of his lies and dishonesty; his outright evasion and downright un-Christian ways; his homophobia and racism...

He is a pathetic caricature completely deserving of the mockery he continues to receive since returning - people are now laughing at him where once they got angry, which must surely be the final ignominy...

Has there ever been a more pointless waste of a person's life online, than Ben's 40,000+ posts...!?

[Sava]

He's easily the worst human being I've ever been acquainted with.

[dannubis]

Just ban the **** already

[rah]

Yeah, he has attained not worth getting angry at and just laughing at or just making fun of him.

All his effort and the final result is a laughing stock.

[dannubis]

It must really hurt Ben that in Ireland homo sexuals have the same rights as hetero sexuals now...

[I AM MOBIUS]

Ben must feel so powerless...

[Sava]

I'm sure he'll take his frustrations out on some poor child

[Sava]

In the form of raping them

[Sava]

I want to be clear, he is an accused pedophile

[Sava]

I'm told