And guess what? People are free to disagree on the facts! If you don't agree with the factual premise of an argument, you don't have to agree with its conclusion. Even though the reasoning is perfectly valid. That way people can have a respectful discussion and try to convince each other. There is no need to jump to: your reasoning is logically wrong, you are stupid.
The thing is that you have a weird definition of "facts," to say the least. You make it sound like what constitutes as facts is dependent on whatever person is talking about said facts.
If I claim I'm able to fly, that doesn't mean I was discussing a fact that other people might disagree with. It means I was talking BS.
In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve.
The assumption that God said gay marriage is wrong doesn't make it a fact you can disagree with. It's an assumption without evidence.
But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions".
There is no good argument against gay marriage, though. Just because some people might find that condescending doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. A lot of people find a lot of stuff condescending.
If you can't justify for your own position, then it's hypocritical to attack the other "side" for not justifying theirs.
1) Just because Grapefruit didn't justify his position doesn't mean he can't. 2) He didn't actually attack the other side for not justifying their position.
Is it insulting to say "the sky is blue" when it's blue? You're leaving no room for anyone to respectfully disagree with you and say "the sky is actually purple."
So if you just assert it as a fact- well basically you're just being a fundamentalist.
Is it fundamentalist to say all humans should have equal rights? I guess it's an opinion, but with matters as important as human rights I don't think it's a bad thing to expect everyone to agree.
If you make a statement like saying there isn't a single good argument against something, you might want to actually make an argument supporting your position.
When I say "men and women are equal," do I have to make an argument that supports this position?
Maybe you should think about what the band you love so much wants more, their fans being all happy and singing along or an entire group of people just standing there and tapping their feet to the rhythm.
Why should I give a **** what the band wants to see me do? I'm paying them to entertain me.
this is the impression I get if someone is going to a concert simply to SEE the band. music is auditory, when you start buying into an image it's about something other than the music
I like watching the way people play their instruments. And yeah, occasionally being able to see a band or artist I love adds to the excitement of the concert for me, I still think that's a far cry from hero worship, though >_>
When you're by yourself listening to a song you love that is upbeat, do you just sit there like a zombie? Or do you sing along, or tap your foot, or anything like that
I never sing along to music, actually. I might tap my foot or something, but my movements are pretty minimal when I listen to music.
I never got into the whole hero worship thing, I love music but if a band I like is just out doing something other than music I can't say I'm super interested.
Where the hell did this come from? I never said I "hero worship" bands, I just object to the idea that you're "not having fun" if you're not singing along with the music or dancing or whatever when you're at a concert.
and i don't think you'll ever have this problem in INSTRUMENTAL JAZZ CONCERTS
...? Do you have a problem with me pointing out that "the concert is exactly like the CD" logic doesn't apply in the case of instrumental jazz concerts?
I love bands that get the audience involved. If you just want to hear the artist sing, listen to the CD or watch live videos.
Still don't get this logic. This is like saying "if you just want to experience nature, you might as well watch a nature video instead of actually going outside." I don't like it when getting the audience involved is detrimental to my experience of the music.
I could just listen to the studio album if I only wanted to hear the band, the concert atmosphere is the biggest reason to go
1) You also go to a concert to see the band. 2) Most of the time a concert sounds different from a studio recording because of the way the recording is produced. 3) In the case of instrumental jazz concerts, the concert will be entirely different from the studio album because that genre relies heavily on improvising.
There is no consensus regarding the taste of vanilla ice cream compared to that of chocolate ice cream, though, so I'm not sure what point the guy tries to make.
And we were discussing music, not fighting game characters. "Chun Li is a broken character" is quite a different statement from "this music is objectively better than that music."
I would like it if people realized that there is a reason that the media portrays certain body types and looks, because that's what looks good. Objectively. For a very large majority of the human race.
A majority liking something doesn't make it objectively good. You're basically saying "Sexy and I Know It" is an objectively good song because a majority of music listeners like it.
so much as annoyed with this mentality that the media (and men) are evil and wrong for liking a certain body type for women.
That's a far cry from how this topic started. It would've been better if you called the topic "I'm annoyed by the mentality that the media (and men) are evil and wrong for liking a certain body type for women."
I'm saying preferring red heads over blondes doesn't have anything to do with beauty, at least not nearly as much as hip to waist ratio, BMI, facial symmetry, complexion, etc.
You're not making sense. Preferring redheads over blondes has everything to do with beauty. You think redheads are more beautiful than blondes.
Right, that's why there is no acceptable level, and it's a bad idea to base your policy on raising everyone to a minimum acceptable level.
That's like saying nobody should be using Windows 7 right now, because it's an abysmal operating system compared to Windows 45, which will be released in 2100. Saying "we should let people with diseases who can't afford healthcare die because the healthcare we can give them is abysmal compared to 2100's standards" is rather weird logic.
Even if there was adequate healthcare available to everyone as well as perfect healthcare for the rich?
If some people can't afford healthcare, obviously adequate healthcare isn't available for everyone.
But would you be okay with 1950s level healthcare? Would your grandchildren be okay with today's level of healthcare?
By this logic healthcare, socialized or otherwise, is never of an "acceptable" level. It will always be better after a hundred years, because, like you said, technology advances.
They believe there is a level that is "good enough." We need to get everyone to the "good enough" level and then we can stop there or proceed beyond there at our pleasure. Just do the fundamentals right.
Even if healthcare could only improve if it's not socialized, I'd rather have adequate healthcare that's available to everyone than perfect healthcare that only the rich can afford.
It's not at all ridiculous to suggest that putting "societal costs" above freedom will lead to ridiculous things.
You seriously think preventing unwanted pregnancies will lead to the killing of old people? You can't just say "X will lead to ridiculous situation Y" without providing any evidence.
To say that ANY slippery slope argument is automatically wrong is to say that every single event is entirely independent of every other event. That nothing ever leads to anything else.
To my understanding slippery slope is misrepresenting the opponent's stance by exaggerating it to make it seem ridiculous. Case in point: LordoftheMorons said we should prevent unwanted pregnancies because it's beneficial to society. You replied: "well, surely you must also think killing old people is a great thing to do, because that'd also be beneficial to society!" This is a ridiculous argument.
Old people on dialysis cost a lot of money to keep alive, and they've been around for a good long time, and they probably aren't going to do much good for society in the rest of their lives, so we should really just pull the plug and let them die, right?
"I just do" seems like a rather superficial reason for something as fundamental as having faith, though. The only reason you have faith is "just because"? Really?
But I mean, when somebody is like "I just have faith. That's all there is to it."
And the other person keeps going "Why, that's dumb."
Just let them think what they want to think, whether you agree with it or not.
Newbie never said "that's dumb," though. And there's nothing wrong with asking a person why they have faith. I wouldn't have a problem with people asking me why I like the philosophical ideas of Socrates and Plato.