What's new
By:
Filters

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

PearlWatson said:
Same thing.
Click to expand...

Except, not really.

If I jump into a discussion about air pollution and start saying that chem-trails are the REAL reason that air quality is poor, then I should expect to be mocked and told that my facts are wrong. Just like you saying that gay marriage is the REAL reason why some people got naked in public is an invitation to ridicule.

Go ahead and google how many acts of lewdness have happened in Utah just this year. If you can't blame gay marriage, what else is there?
 
PearlWatson said:
Because you are making the empty drivel claims, and if you defined it you would show some substance, but like siro you are too much of a coward to stand for anything.



Same thing.
Click to expand...

I stand for a lot of things. If I didn't, we wouldn't be having this debate. And you really shouldn't mistake you stray little beliefs for acts of bravery. They are anything but that. One Brow has spent the last few years trying to educate you. And for what? You are still as simple as they day your parents taught you that thinking for yourself is an affront to God. If that's your bravery, I'm more than happy to remain a coward.
 
dalamon said:
The "haven't read" tidbit was directed to GVC, sorry about that. He mentioned that the paper wasn't a biased study cuz it came from a peer-reviewed journal.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the now defunct discussion, but I don't like when people misrepresent what I post/say. I never said the study wasn't biased. I was pointing out that it was published in a legitimate, peer reviewed journal, and not by the FRC, as you claimed.
 
GVC said:
Not relevant to the now defunct discussion, but I don't like when people misrepresent what I post/say. I never said the study wasn't biased. I was pointing out that it was published in a legitimate, peer reviewed journal, and not by the FRC, as you claimed.
Click to expand...

When you said that, I took it as you inferring that the study had legitimacy. I didn't mean to put you down.

Perhaps the word 'inferred' would have been better used than mentioned.

Also, the FRC doesn't conduct their own studies to my knowledge-- when I referred to "their studies", I was referring to the studies they cite to.
 
dalamon said:
When you said that, I took it as you inferring that the study had legitimacy. I didn't mean to put you down.

Perhaps the word 'inferred' would have been better used than mentioned.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post? I plainly stated that I hadn't read the study after detailing some of the problems with it (some of which were explicitly mentioned in the FRC article). Why would you take this as a statement about the legitimacy of the study?
 
GVC said:
Did you even read my post?
Click to expand...

You're acting like a moron. I clearly quoted parts of your post in my previous post


I plainly stated that I hadn't read the study after detailing some of the problems with it (some of which were explicitly mentioned in the FRC article). Why would you take this as a statement about the legitimacy of the study?
Click to expand...

Because it was in direct response to me saying that the article and study was a joke, which I took as you standing up for the study, inferring that it was legitimate. Slow your roll for two seconds, and you'll understand.
 
dalamon said:
You're acting like a moron. I clearly quoted parts of your post in my previous post
Click to expand...
You quoted the first sentence and alluded to the last sentence of my post.




dalamon said:
Because it was in direct response to me saying that the article and study was a joke, which I took as you standing up for the study, inferring that it was legitimate. Slow your roll for two seconds, and you'll understand.
Click to expand...
The bulk of my post is about methodological problems with the study in question. The only way you could have concluded that I was "standing up for" the study is if you didn't read or glossed over this discussion about methodology. Perhaps you should "slow your roll" and consider the content of a post/argument before jumping to conclusions. Just because someone points out a flaw in something you post/argue doesn't mean they disagree with the whole thing. In my experience, the best way to have a respectful, productive discussion is to take what people say at face value and ask for clarification when necessary. Like most people, I'm not terribly gifted at reading others' intent, so I avoid doing so whenever possible.

As an aside, I don't agree that checking who funded research is the first thing one should do when considering its validity/value. That's an incredibly prejudicial approach, which will invariably lead to the premature dismissal of some well-conducted research, especially if its conclusions run counter to your beliefs. If learning/understanding is more important than fitting in, considering a study's inherent biases, including the funding, should be undertaken after reading it and evaluating the merit of its methodology and conclusions.
 
GVC said:
As an aside, I don't agree that checking who funded research is the first thing one should do when considering its validity/value.
Click to expand...

The first thing is the validity of the data and methodology. However, who funded the research is also revealing.
 
Siro said:
I stand for a lot of things. If I didn't, we wouldn't be having this debate. And you really shouldn't mistake you stray little beliefs for acts of bravery. They are anything but that. One Brow has spent the last few years trying to educate you. And for what? You are still as simple as they day your parents taught you that thinking for yourself is an affront to God. If that's your bravery, I'm more than happy to remain a coward.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you got that off your chest but I was referring to your refusal to tell me what "objective measures" you were talking about after I asked twice.

It shouldn't be hard to say what you meant if you actually had any substance behind your posts.
 
PearlWatson said:
I'm glad you got that off your chest but I was referring to your refusal to tell me what "objective measures" you were talking about after I asked twice.

It shouldn't be hard to say what you meant if you actually had any substance behind your posts.
Click to expand...

I believe he is asking is there any objective measure you can name. What are the measurable effects of gay marriage? Does it increase any crime rate? Divorce rate? Abortion rate? Rate of single parenting?

I'm sure Siro could list a thousand different objective measures, and you would say there is no reason for gay marriage to impact any of them. We are asking which ones you think it does impact.
 
One Brow said:
I believe he is asking is there any objective measure you can name.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look good for his cowardice quotient if you jump in to his defense, especially when you are wrong. He responded when I blew down dalamon's strawman and made a statement that he refused to stand behind in any way.

dalamon said:
Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005?
Click to expand...

PearlWatson said:
Naked protests, reminiscent of homosexual pride parades, over tuition hikes doesn't exactly boost your "point."
Click to expand...

Siro said:
Gay marriage hasn't affected Canada negatively in any objective measure.
Click to expand...

PearlWatson said:
What "objective measures" have you been looking at?
Click to expand...
 
OMG!

Naked protests over tuition will skyrocket now that gay marriage has been un-prohibited.

Come on U of U, raise that tuition. Daddy needs this.
 
Gameface said:
OMG!

Naked protests over tuition will skyrocket now that gay marriage has been un-prohibited.

Come on U of U, raise that tuition. Daddy needs this.
Click to expand...

They did but this is all you get in Utah:

SALT LAKE CITY – A University of Utah student says he paid his tuition bill with 2,000 one-dollar bills as a silent protest against the rising cost of college.

Luq Mughal brought a metal case full of greenbacks to the school Tuesday, the deadline for payment. He says he collected the cash from several banks.

Mughal tells The Salt Lake Tribune he spends weekends working to pay for his electrical engineering degree.

The 21-year-old says he gets a discount because his father is a faculty member and acknowledges his situation is far from the worst on campus.

Undergraduate in-state tuition rates have more than doubled in Utah over the past 10 years. Trustees set a 5 percent tuition hike this year, saying they needed to fund a cost-of-living raise for employees as state funding declines.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/...s-tuition-in-1-bills-to-protest-rising-costs/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top