c-square wrote:This has stopped being a discussion and has started to become personal attacks. I suggest either people stick to discussing the issue calmly in plain text, and refrain from attacking other posters. DCTP is a great place where I feel people can come and feel respected no matter what their background, history or view on the world, and I would hate to see that lost because of personal attacks over a heated issue.
I
completely disagree--it is not about personal attacks. The issue was never lost and is still, without question, the focus of the topic. I have been and remain completely calm on the subject. Individually engaging fellow posters does not amount to "personal attacks" when they have clearly demonstrated their views. There are homosexual users in this forum that have read this topic and have mentioned to me how they have felt persecuted against much of their lives as a result of statements made by people like Tawi and Dwalin but feel encouraged because there is finally some people expressing support for
them instead of the other way around. If the other side truly believe what they believe,
it is not a "personal attack" to call someone out on those views and the basis of those views and I welcome
anyone and
everyone to do so with me, as they have already in this topic, and I have not yet been offended at anyone doing so. No, really: I invite them to try, again.
Kleene Onigiri wrote:Dwalin wrote:May I also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you have ever thought that, if I may be wrong about something, you may be as well? (i am not saying you are wrong about the rights of the homosexuals, it's just a general question I ask because the way of speaking of most people in this particular thread makes me suspect they think they are never wrong and even thinking they sometimes are is blasphemy or something like that).
That's a strange question.
Everyone should (and most will and do) question their views and believes on subjects. That's why arguments are also good to see other peoples views and points.
But if you write you own statement, and it'll sound like: "I think, maybe, but I'm not so sure, that, JUST MABYE, gay marriage, but I could be wrong, should be allowed. But I'm still thinking about it! So I could be wrong!" What? XD
Yeah :x With such a message, everyone else who reads that would think: "That person doesn't have a solid opinion about it and isn't confident D:"
It is very nice to be on the same side, Kleeners!
Dwalin wrote:[Sparse post with only selected quotes used in reply, making for quite an ineffective and disjointed effort]
First of all:
If you're going to reply to someone, reply to the points of their argument instead of picking out random sentences that you feel you have some sort of argument against. If you cannot demonstrate that you can suitably siphon out those points in a manner that is reasonably adequate, it is better to not try to do so.So people were wrong in listening to God, right? Very, very good to know. That means God is and can be wrong. I never thought a Christian would ever agree to that point. You do still agree, right? That God is and can be completely and unquestionably wrong? If that is so, does that not mean that anyone following this anti-homosexual religious agenda is also entirely in the wrong and should be taken to task for that sentiment? If you truly believe that to be so, you should be supporting equal human rights and telling fellow believers not to use the name of God to keep other people from being happy. Try again.
Thank you dearly for saying "someone rational like you" because that is one point I do not feel we must debate. Thank you. However, the rest of your reply in the paragraph in question is...
completely and utterly misinformed, to put it nicely. More blood has been spilled in the name of an
idea than you could ever imagine. God is, in my own opinion as you do seem to understand but for some reason ignored, an
idea. Blood can be spilled in the name of an idea, and has been. I'm not sure why you phrased your argument as you did when you at least seem to know that and yet contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. However, you are also attributing to me some sort of strange argument that I never made. I never said that there was
ANYTHING supernatural about people killing in the name of God. There's nothing supernatural about people killing in the name of
any radical fundamentalist agenda, so pretending that I somehow attributed that to the supernatural is just silly. It makes me wonder if you actually read my post where I suggested that God was entirely man-made or if your God-tinted glasses simply filtered that whole part out? If you actually believe the banter you just posed in this paragraph, you are surely, unquestionably, undeniably, mistaken and need to re-read the post carefully lest you fall into other lines of erroneous thought. Try again.
You're playing the victim card here, yet again. I never said I "despised" you or even that I disliked you. Quite the contrary, I said that I believed you to be a good person and I never recanted on that and still have not. Nice try, but... Try again.
Let me make this
abundantly clear: I have not been angry at
any point in this thread, including during the composition of the last post and this one. You haven't seen me "angry" before, and saying that someone is "angry" as a means of retorting their argument is, quite frankly, childish. Someone could be raving mad and their argument would not be any less validated. You can't get out of an argument just by saying the other side is "mean" or "angry"--especially when you are so desperately wrong. I cannot speak for everyone, but I can say that I am not angry and have yet to be. You have no idea what it takes to get me angry, and assuming that I am irrational with rage is condescending on your part (nothing new) and also completely and utterly false (also nothing new). Even if someone were to get angry here, they have plenty of reason from just what you have said in implying homosexuals are immoral (which you very clearly did). Apologizing for it later does not give them reason to not be angry with you. Unfortunately for you, I'm still not angry. You'll have to actually form a coherent argument for that to even begin to become the case. Try again.
Tawi wasn't "tolerated"? You mean, the person that told us gay people were, quite clearly, lesser beings and are not deserving of your sympathy and especially not rights equal to yours wasn't "tolerated"? The fact that he was still able to log into his account was quite tolerant, I would say. The fact that we tolerated his views enough to allow clear hate speech here seemed to be quite tolerant, in fact. Even beyond all that, think about what you're saying. You are accusing the people being persecuted against by the intolerant
of being intolerant. Do you not see how delusional that logic is?
(Going to wager now that the answer is "no") Also:
you do not know IHKF. Someone explained in a previous post how her posts are often meant to incite others and did so quite aptly (I believe it was Abs that posted as much, but I could be wrong). I will retrieve the post if you wish. Try again.
In so many of these "selected quotes" you have drawn from my post, you have taken lines out of context to answer questions that weren't even the full questions (for example, the one about aggressive Christians). If you cannot preserve the points as they were intended in your replies,
please do not continue to try to do so because you have very, very often failed at it. Your debating skills are incredibly weak if you believe it is sufficient to draw random, unconnected quotes to respond to when you are not even doing that effectively. Try again.
You have also created a very clear victim complex on your part meant to gain you sympathy, but you have also yet to construct a single valid argument to date. If you would spend less time playing the victim and more time playing the debater, maybe it would be easier on you. This quote especially is just
laughable: "Or do you consider us lesser human beings?" That almost made me consider the notion that you may be trolling. That is
such an elementary tactic. Please refrain from again introducing a strawman of that scale here. Try again.
I also thank you for proving me right on
every challenge I presented in that post and will gladly demonstrate all of said points again if necessary, and that is why I ask you to...
Give me a real reply to the post I made above if you have an actual argument to make--a reply with some sort of [i]actual counterargument instead of just pulling quotes down that you feel you have a response to. You weren't even effective in taking out select quotes to reply to, so if you have it in you, form an actual reply and don't rely on multiple quotes to retain some sort of semblance to a train of thought. You have studied essays in school and should have an idea of what composition entails. Simply take the post and rebut it point by point, in essay form, if your argument is really that strong, exactly as I did. I left no point unturned in my post. Can you not do the same?[/i]You're going to make a reply to this post (you can't resist) and yet you still will not go back and make an actual reply to the post where I very clearly decimated every statement you've made in this topic because you know that you can't. If you have such good points to make, why can you not take the time to form an actual, coherent argument instead of just pulling down random quotes that you feel are advantageous to you? Come on, you can do better than just playing the victim and saying, "B-B-But... t-they're all mad at meeeeeee...".
In other words, if you want to be taken seriously:
Try again.
While people may be defending their ideals aggressively, the same can be said for you, Dwalin...
