A refutation
A refutation
“Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.”
The term idiot is not only psychologically and legally deficient, but also the expression of a personal opinion, as opposed to an observable truth or fact. This having been said, there can be no viable proof that Beanieboy is indeed an “idiot”. If you disagree with my own observation regarding this issue, please provide me with an academic argument disproving the validity of what I have just said.
>Bob says: "Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have MOST cultures throughout civilization." Bob said “MOST”! “MOST”! He did not say ALL. He said “MOST”. Yet you try to debunk his statement by pointing to Native American Culture(s). Do you realize that there are more countries on the earth other than America? And there were many more cultures that existed throughout history other than Native American Cultures.”
I am invariably left to wonder what data set was employed or what qualitative research methods ‘Bob’ used in order to acquire such information as he has claimed to have. Given the nature of a generalized numerical figure such as “billions”, it is likely that this statistic, if it can even be called such, is entirely contrived. Moreover and on a lighter note, I would like to commend you on your awareness of cultural and political diversity throughout the world, both present and historic. That having been said, historically within both the Greek and Roman empires, homosexuality was not “condoned” but normalized and in many cases celebrated. Both empires (Greek and Roman) at different points in history spanned nearly the full breadth of the known world (more specifically in the case of the Roman, rather than in the Greek); their influence such that we base our notions of westernism and europeanism primarily upon the cultural and academic merits of both civilizations. I would also like to add that our own political systems of a representative democracy and a constitutional republic were both derived from earlier Roman and Greek traditions. Lastly, before I am berated for using the ‘hedonistic’ Greek and Roman empires as models for comparison, I would also like to point out that the original Gospels were written in Greek, and that were it not for the endorsement of Christianity by Constantine, and for its formal adoption by the Roman empire, Christianity would likely have died off, or survived only as a regional/geographic religion (much like Jainism).
“Christians, Jews and Moslems are opposed to homosexuality. These religions account for a very large percentage of people on this planet.”
While it is inevitably true, and statistically verifiable, that Christians, Jews, and Moslems comprise a large majority of the world’s population; it is equally true that no two individual belief sets are the same. This having been said, it is impossible to state to any degree of accuracy that all Christians, Jews, and Moslems condemn homosexuality, it is nearly as equally impossible to state that ‘most’ condemn the practice. It is also interesting to note that in Indonesia, the largest Moslem nation-state, in terms of population, maintains a practice in which a fraction of men are brought up and socialized, in respects to gender association, as women. A devout Indonesian Moslem male may have sexual intercourse with such an individual, and ironically it does not constitute a breach in religious theology or practice, neither of which being considered a “homosexual” by the surrounding community of believers. This establishes an interesting and perhaps unique precedent, and a platform for further discussion: is the discrepancy with homosexuality one of sex, or one of gender? I’ll leave you with this to consider.
>Bob wrote: "Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse.” He then backed this claim by quoting from several leaders in the homosexual community and from popular homosexual publications. Yet you try to counter this by saying that "homosexual leaders are not the ones saying this.” While ‘Mabla’ could be considered a fringe group, the other references that Bob gave cannot.
References typically involve citations, which (if you are unfamiliar with the process), generally include the person’s name who is quoted as making the specific remark or statement, their title or position relating to the organization or movement with which they are associated (“gay leaders” would be wholly inadequate in any serious academic collegiate level publication as a reference or citation), and also the time and name of the article, speech, or other text in which the remark or statement was made. This (the citation and article itself) is usually followed by what is widely referred to as a bibliography, including a direct link (in the instance of internet citation) or more specific information on the text, such as publisher, author, date of publication isbn, etc) which provides the reader with a means of ‘getting ahold of’ their (in this case Bob’s) information base. This is relatively important, considering these sources allow critical or discerning readers to decide based on the merit of the research, whether or not it’s author is truly familiar with the subject itself.
”In your message you repeatedly call Bob a liar. But sense you’re a homo, and thus unable to distinguish between right and wrong, I am also convinced that you are unable to distinguish between a truth and a lie.”
If the United States were to adopt your own opinion, as expressed above, that gays are incapable of appropriate moral reasoning, then given current legal precedents they would logically be comparable to adolescents under the age of 12. I say 12 because this is a generally accepted legal and psychological age, by which an adolescent is understood to be morally and psychologically capable of discerning between right and wrong. If a gay person say, exhibits the same moral reasoning as a four year old, which I believe you would find acceptably demeaning, then by your own argument Beanieboy could rape, murder, or otherwise maim you and be legally exempt from prosecution, understanding that he as a presumed homosexual would be incapable of comprehending the difference between a right and wrong action. Would you honestly care to see your personal opinion, expressed assumedly as a fact, take legal precedence in a court of law?
“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart
Given the hormones introduced to Beef, the practice of feeding carrion cattle to other cattle, and the processes of manufacture farming, I would be inclined to state that according to the biblical charge of “being good stewards”, Bob is somewhat failing to meet certain religious expectations. While I do not feel that it is necessary to list the ins and outs of meat manufacturing in the U.S., I will post an academically suitable link to substantiate what I have just said. Please read and consider the following…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_benefits_of_Vegetarianism
Best of luck,
Jake
A refutation
“Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.”
The term idiot is not only psychologically and legally deficient, but also the expression of a personal opinion, as opposed to an observable truth or fact. This having been said, there can be no viable proof that Beanieboy is indeed an “idiot”. If you disagree with my own observation regarding this issue, please provide me with an academic argument disproving the validity of what I have just said.
>Bob says: "Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have MOST cultures throughout civilization." Bob said “MOST”! “MOST”! He did not say ALL. He said “MOST”. Yet you try to debunk his statement by pointing to Native American Culture(s). Do you realize that there are more countries on the earth other than America? And there were many more cultures that existed throughout history other than Native American Cultures.”
I am invariably left to wonder what data set was employed or what qualitative research methods ‘Bob’ used in order to acquire such information as he has claimed to have. Given the nature of a generalized numerical figure such as “billions”, it is likely that this statistic, if it can even be called such, is entirely contrived. Moreover and on a lighter note, I would like to commend you on your awareness of cultural and political diversity throughout the world, both present and historic. That having been said, historically within both the Greek and Roman empires, homosexuality was not “condoned” but normalized and in many cases celebrated. Both empires (Greek and Roman) at different points in history spanned nearly the full breadth of the known world (more specifically in the case of the Roman, rather than in the Greek); their influence such that we base our notions of westernism and europeanism primarily upon the cultural and academic merits of both civilizations. I would also like to add that our own political systems of a representative democracy and a constitutional republic were both derived from earlier Roman and Greek traditions. Lastly, before I am berated for using the ‘hedonistic’ Greek and Roman empires as models for comparison, I would also like to point out that the original Gospels were written in Greek, and that were it not for the endorsement of Christianity by Constantine, and for its formal adoption by the Roman empire, Christianity would likely have died off, or survived only as a regional/geographic religion (much like Jainism).
“Christians, Jews and Moslems are opposed to homosexuality. These religions account for a very large percentage of people on this planet.”
While it is inevitably true, and statistically verifiable, that Christians, Jews, and Moslems comprise a large majority of the world’s population; it is equally true that no two individual belief sets are the same. This having been said, it is impossible to state to any degree of accuracy that all Christians, Jews, and Moslems condemn homosexuality, it is nearly as equally impossible to state that ‘most’ condemn the practice. It is also interesting to note that in Indonesia, the largest Moslem nation-state, in terms of population, maintains a practice in which a fraction of men are brought up and socialized, in respects to gender association, as women. A devout Indonesian Moslem male may have sexual intercourse with such an individual, and ironically it does not constitute a breach in religious theology or practice, neither of which being considered a “homosexual” by the surrounding community of believers. This establishes an interesting and perhaps unique precedent, and a platform for further discussion: is the discrepancy with homosexuality one of sex, or one of gender? I’ll leave you with this to consider.
>Bob wrote: "Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse.” He then backed this claim by quoting from several leaders in the homosexual community and from popular homosexual publications. Yet you try to counter this by saying that "homosexual leaders are not the ones saying this.” While ‘Mabla’ could be considered a fringe group, the other references that Bob gave cannot.
References typically involve citations, which (if you are unfamiliar with the process), generally include the person’s name who is quoted as making the specific remark or statement, their title or position relating to the organization or movement with which they are associated (“gay leaders” would be wholly inadequate in any serious academic collegiate level publication as a reference or citation), and also the time and name of the article, speech, or other text in which the remark or statement was made. This (the citation and article itself) is usually followed by what is widely referred to as a bibliography, including a direct link (in the instance of internet citation) or more specific information on the text, such as publisher, author, date of publication isbn, etc) which provides the reader with a means of ‘getting ahold of’ their (in this case Bob’s) information base. This is relatively important, considering these sources allow critical or discerning readers to decide based on the merit of the research, whether or not it’s author is truly familiar with the subject itself.
”In your message you repeatedly call Bob a liar. But sense you’re a homo, and thus unable to distinguish between right and wrong, I am also convinced that you are unable to distinguish between a truth and a lie.”
If the United States were to adopt your own opinion, as expressed above, that gays are incapable of appropriate moral reasoning, then given current legal precedents they would logically be comparable to adolescents under the age of 12. I say 12 because this is a generally accepted legal and psychological age, by which an adolescent is understood to be morally and psychologically capable of discerning between right and wrong. If a gay person say, exhibits the same moral reasoning as a four year old, which I believe you would find acceptably demeaning, then by your own argument Beanieboy could rape, murder, or otherwise maim you and be legally exempt from prosecution, understanding that he as a presumed homosexual would be incapable of comprehending the difference between a right and wrong action. Would you honestly care to see your personal opinion, expressed assumedly as a fact, take legal precedence in a court of law?
“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart
Given the hormones introduced to Beef, the practice of feeding carrion cattle to other cattle, and the processes of manufacture farming, I would be inclined to state that according to the biblical charge of “being good stewards”, Bob is somewhat failing to meet certain religious expectations. While I do not feel that it is necessary to list the ins and outs of meat manufacturing in the U.S., I will post an academically suitable link to substantiate what I have just said. Please read and consider the following…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_benefits_of_Vegetarianism
Best of luck,
Jake
