So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
Well, Eric, just to be clear, my current questions are more directed to the style of argument you often make, which I often find quite frustrating. I think your responses so far have helped reveal where I think the problem (as I see it to be, anyway) lies.
I think that in our debates, the answers you give are often intended to answer what you deem to be the "ultimate" issue, without any real regard to the particular question being asked. This leads to a lot of confusion, I think. As an example, take the two following responses:
1. I don't CARE about pragmatic concerns. They are insignificant to me. I therefore ignore them. For me they don't even exist, because they are not a "concern" of mine, even if someone else may have such concerns.
2. There are no pragmatic concerns.
Although perhaps similar in some respects, those are two ENTIRELY different answers in my book. To give answer 2, when you only intend answer 1, can be very misleading.
I think that in our debates, the answers you give are often intended to answer what you deem to be the "ultimate" issue, without any real regard to the particular question being asked. This leads to a lot of confusion, I think. As an example, take the two following responses:
1. I don't CARE about pragmatic concerns. They are insignificant to me. I therefore ignore them. For me they don't even exist, because they are not a "concern" of mine, even if someone else may have such concerns.
2. There are no pragmatic concerns.
Although perhaps similar in some respects, those are two ENTIRELY different answers in my book. To give answer 2, when you only intend answer 1, can be very misleading.
In terms of that clarification, regarding 2), until you have measured the height of a building in some fashion, you don't know if it is ten stories tall, and you don't have a pragmatic concern. As I mentioned before, you have to measure the building.
Regarding 1), I don't view seeing my taxes raised as being insignificant. However, I do see basic civil rights concerns trumping monetary concerns, regardless.
Hopper
Banned
Yes, you did say that before, which is why I asked the following question, which you never answered:
Hopper
Banned
OK, fine, Eric. I can understand this view, and can respect it. Again, my only point was that, if that's what you're really trying to say, it's better to just say it than to, instead, assert a conclusion which you think your position entails (such as, for example, "monetary concerns are non-existent").
Sorry, I thought I did answer it. I would jump if being asked to by certain people, or if it could guarantee certain causes.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Eric, I meant the last question, not the intermediate one. This one:
"No one has proven to you that it's 2000 feet, or 1999 feet, nine and 15/16 inches, or any other particular number, right? So, now, the number in question is not even a "pragmatic concern?" That your argument?"
Hopper
Banned
"What do you see as the pragmatic influence of that lack of information?": Well, plenty, don't you? If I don't know how far I'm gunna drop, I'm gunna be reluctant to jump, whether I have a way of getting the information, or not. The "lack of information" doesn't turn the question of distance into one of "no pragmatic concern" for me. But in the circumstances we've been discussing, generally (gay marriage) it's not like a good estimate of the "information" cannot be obtained, even if you don't know it offhand.
In my analogy, I might ask that I be unblindfolded, before I decided to jump, rather than just jump because I was told to. I could than get "some idea" of the distance of the fall, even if it wasn't precisely measured. I wouldn't need a "tape measure" to make my decision.
"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Ya see, it's this kinda statement that puzzles me. You are in effect sayin, it seems, that if you don't know, then the information is irrelevant and/or that if you "don't know," then all decisions are equal in consequence, and should therefore be selected from merely on the basis of what one "feels" like deciding.
"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Deciding not to jump is a "decision" where I come from.
Last edited:
Speaking of pragmatic, unless the building is on fire why would you two be arguing about jumping off a perfectly good building??
Hopper
Banned
Well, Marcus, why not, I ax ya?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I had a friend on facebook talk about how if its legalized that people could then one day get married to their dogs. Doesn't the whole Equal Protection Clause kind of prevent that since animals aren't considered citizens or persons? If animals have the rights that citizens have, does that mean that they can vote, take up arms, and then pay taxes?