Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't propose any argument against homosexuality,so...
You reasoned fallaciously by saying "but straights do this, ..." this isn't argument for the safeness and goodness of the homosexualality, it is an argument against "straights". So what if straights are doing bad thngs, does this logically imply that homosexuality is a good thing? No. It is a non-sequitur -- it does not follow.
But the fact remains, others, many liberals, have debated, will debate, and are currently debating EVERYTHING you listed in the opening post. I have asked you to debate me directly, and you won't do it.
So, is your point disproved enough for you yet? BTW, there is this button in the top right corner of the opening forum screen, says "search this forum", you can type in any of the words you listed above, and they have been hotly debated in the past, multiple times.
But the fact remains, others, many liberals, have debated, will debate, and are currently debating EVERYTHING you listed in the opening post. I have asked you to debate me directly, and you won't do it.
So, is your point disproved enough for you yet? BTW, there is this button in the top right corner of the opening forum screen, says "search this forum", you can type in any of the words you listed above, and they have been hotly debated in the past, multiple times.
Those hot topics aren't central to my argument. I could've used other examples, those points were just examples of things many liberals take to be unquestionable truths. The topic is Liberal and their attitude/view of truth. the latter is much more broad than what you want to debate.
Those hot topics aren't central to my argument. I could've used other examples, those points were just examples of things many liberals take to be unquestionable truths. The topic is Liberal and their attitude/view of truth. the latter is much more broad than what you want to debate.
But your point is that liberals won't debate these topics.
List your other topics, or go to the search function at the top right.
I guarantee you I can find at least one thread, if not many, on every topic you can think of.
Trust me, I've been on this forum for over three years now, and I've seen it all.
"At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year. ."
Maybe i shouldn't have used the examples. I think it is clear that the post is about Liberals and Truth, not HBI's. I think people naturally want respond to that part of the post for whatever millitant reason.
Don't you think this mindset is predcated on modern liberal presuppositions? Conservatives I debate typically do not take facts for granted.
No, I don't think that. I've encountered much more absolutism in thought from conservatives than liberals in my life. Deviancy from conservative "truths" used to get a person labelled as gay or communist, today they probably have other labels. "Liberal commie pinko" is a joking phrase now but it stems from being used in seriousness.
Do you live in a mostly conservative or mostly liberal environment?
No, I don't think that. I've encountered much more absolutism in thought from conservatives than liberals in my life. Deviancy from conservative "truths" used to get a person labelled as gay or communist, today they probably have other labels. "Liberal commie pinko" is a joking phrase now but it stems from being used in seriousness.
Do you live in a mostly conservative or mostly liberal environment?
Probably liberal. I think much of mainstream thinking is liberal though. I think conservatives are absolutists, but this isn't bad.What is bad is thinking that the "truth of the matter is irrelavent as long as everyone is happy" or whatever. Conservatives are very entrenched in their views, but mostly because they think it is the truth.
The value of truth is the problem here. how can any debate be fruitful if your ideology treats truth like an "option"? on this view, I ideology can only be checked by praticality or whatever. This can't be a good thing.
This thread proves what i am saying in the OP. Those subpoints aren't the topic, they are simply examples.
This concept may be difficult for you to grasp, but if the evidence you cite in support of your argument is false that might undermine your argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
