McCain gets slammed!!!

[NoelleNC]

THE argument is pretty simple. It's not made to insult or discriminate. It simply differentiates. I don't see a problem with differentiation. =)

[Grakthis]

Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?

And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.  

And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.

I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.

And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK

I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well.  If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.

But that's the concern of language, not of the law.

[Grakthis]

Oh, and PS, just because they are similar to us doesn't mean it's stupid to consider they may carry other diseases and viruses to spread to us... so it'd be best to be careful of any laws built up around these new aliens when they first arrive. I exaggerated by calling upon a plague, but in theory it's not ridiculous as you tried to make it sound.

That's not the point.

When someone introduces a hypothetical situation, you don't start changing their hypothetical situation.  You take it at face value and answer the question.

Of course IRL it's plausible that they would carry totally different and potentially devistating micro organisms.  But that's not the point.  I didn't present that as part of the hypothetical situation.

[Grakthis]

I just want to point out that in science you have to have a control group and you have to have a theory which is fallible, that is, can be disproven and repeatable.  It has to be able to be disproven empirically.

Simply not true.  Because, as we all know, psychology is still considered a science.  But thanks for quoting Karl Popper at us.  I am sure there are people here who haven't had philosophy 101 who appreciate the insight.

[NoelleNC]

Oh, and PS, just because they are similar to us doesn't mean it's stupid to consider they may carry other diseases and viruses to spread to us... so it'd be best to be careful of any laws built up around these new aliens when they first arrive. I exaggerated by calling upon a plague, but in theory it's not ridiculous as you tried to make it sound.

That's not the point.

When someone introduces a hypothetical situation, you don't start changing their hypothetical situation.  You take it at face value and answer the question.

Of course IRL it's plausible that they would carry totally different and potentially devistating micro organisms.  But that's not the point.  I didn't present that as part of the hypothetical situation.

Ok, well I was just playing "what if" because you were.

[NoelleNC]

Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?

And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.  

And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.

I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.

And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK

I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well.  If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.

But that's the concern of language, not of the law.

Well then we aren't really that far off base in terms of our opinions. I would actually be fine with calling it, legally and verbally, "gay marriage". However, I know that people are not going to go around calling themselves "gay married". It will just become "married", and for the sake of clarity that is why I favor the term "garried". I joke about it, but I think it could be a good thing, too.

It is a concern of language, but at the same time language & law have their meshing points. What something is called can be a legal matter!

[xxlovelyxx]

grakthis is going to hell

[tylor2000]

I just want to point out that in science you have to have a control group and you have to have a theory which is fallible, that is, can be disproven and repeatable.  It has to be able to be disproven empirically.

Simply not true.  Because, as we all know, psychology is still considered a science.  But thanks for quoting Karl Popper at us.  I am sure there are people here who haven't had philosophy 101 who appreciate the insight.

The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard.  The stuff you  read in beginning textbooks.  You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.

From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.

Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.

The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid  --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself.  Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim?  We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.

[Grakthis]

The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard.  The stuff you  read in beginning textbooks.  You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.

Scientific fact is a misnomer.  Science doesn't believe in fact.  Only things that haven't been disproven yet.

From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.

Oh, so now there's not just a standard for "science," there's a different standard for each subject?  Do you just constantly change your position until it's eventually right?  Is that how this works?

Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.

Right.  So, the standards of hypothetical situations are different for each science.  lolz.

Man.  This keeps getting better and better.

The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid  --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself.  Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim?  We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.

The very fact that you are named Tylor is proof in and of itself that I am right.

Oh, wait, we're not making up non-sensical arguments?  You actually think you're saying something relevant here?

If someone presents a theory based on biology or life sciences and applies it to the Law, and what I attack is her application, then maybe it might occur to a few of those dozen active braincells you have left that I'm not disagreeing with her position on life sciences but instead I am disagreeing with her application of that position to the law?

I know, I know.  It's a major stretch for you.  But if you put some real time into it and think REALLY hard, it might make sense to you.

If it still doesn't, then I recomend you stop talking.

[Grakthis]

Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?

And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.  

And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.

I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.

And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK

I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well.  If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.

But that's the concern of language, not of the law.

Well then we aren't really that far off base in terms of our opinions. I would actually be fine with calling it, legally and verbally, "gay marriage". However, I know that people are not going to go around calling themselves "gay married". It will just become "married", and for the sake of clarity that is why I favor the term "garried". I joke about it, but I think it could be a good thing, too.

It is a concern of language, but at the same time language & law have their meshing points. What something is called can be a legal matter!

Yeah.  It's not your opinion on differntiation that I have a problem with.  I think diferentiation is good.

It's your desire to include that in the law.  I don't think the law has a place discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender.

[NoelleNC]

I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?

And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.

[Grakthis]

I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?

And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.

Races are not protected except in that minorities are granted an enforced equal hiring status by employment laws.  Which is part of why those employment laws are so hotly contested.

[NoelleNC]

I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?

And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.

Races are not protected except in that minorities are granted an enforced equal hiring status by employment laws.  Which is part of why those employment laws are so hotly contested.

As far as I know, there are more legalities involved in race and sex than just affirmative action. Otherwise anyone could choose to call themselves any race or sex and there would nothing, legally, that anyone could do about it.... is that the case? lol. I feel like calling myself a male Puerto Rican today.

[tylor2000]

The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard.  The stuff you  read in beginning textbooks.  You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.

Scientific fact is a misnomer.  Science doesn't believe in fact.  Only things that haven't been disproven yet.

You are simply wrong about that.  A fact is something that can be disproven or proven.  There are facts that have been establsihed enough they call them Scientific Laws. Untill disproven, if ever, they are considered true facts and constructions once established.

From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.

Oh, so now there's not just a standard for "science," there's a different standard for each subject?  Do you just constantly change your position until it's eventually right?  Is that how this works?

It's not a change in position!  This shows ignorance on your part.  They are called disaplines for a reason.  Acadamia would agree with me.  The standards of validity are different because each subject's aim is different in what it is supposed to establish in the material the subject's disapline deals with.

Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.

Right.  So, the standards of hypothetical situations are different for each science.  lolz.

No, there is a different standard with every academic disapline, for one.  And there is a different history and culture for each science.


Man.  This keeps getting better and better.

[ :roll: ]

The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid  --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself.  Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim?  We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.

The very fact that you are named Tylor is proof in and of itself that I am right.

nonsense.

Oh, wait, we're not making up non-sensical arguments?  You actually think you're saying something relevant here?

Yes.

If someone presents a theory based on biology or life sciences and applies it to the Law, and what I attack is her application, then maybe it might occur to a few of those dozen active braincells you have left that I'm not disagreeing with her position on life sciences but instead I am disagreeing with her application of that position to the law?

I saw that from when you both started making your arguments on it.  I just want to keep you from making scientific nonsense and passing it off as legitamate.  Because obviously You don't know what the hell you are talking about in that manner.  Argue her application of it all you want, just don't touch arguments you have no idea how to approach correctly.

I think people enjoy arguing with you, but sometimes your arguments become so unweildly with BS, people are no longer concerned with making proper arguments but with correcting all the errant statements and propositions you make.  It reminds one of pruning a tree.  Sometimes after pruning all the branches with no success your best option seems to chop the tree off at the trunk.  I'm sure many of us have come to the point, at one point or another, of wanting to chop off your intellect at the neck.


I know, I know.  It's a major stretch for you.  But if you put some real time into it and think REALLY hard, it might make sense to you.

Nah, I'm already ahead of you.  You can only chop off one errant branch at a time and do a good job of it.

If it still doesn't, then I recomend you stop talking.

Not a chance.

[Grakthis]

As far as I know, there are more legalities involved in race and sex than just affirmative action. Otherwise anyone could choose to call themselves any race or sex and there would nothing, legally, that anyone could do about it.... is that the case? lol. I feel like calling myself a male Puerto Rican today.

I think that is the case until your gender is defined by law.

You can call yourself whatever you want right up until you are trying to file a lawsuit for sexual discrimination or whatever.