Chart of 2012 contenders on LGBT issuesFollow

Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.

Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?

When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:26pm by gbaji

I'm not following what you're trying to get at, but it appears that I disagree with you.




This.

People aren't going to vote for 3rd party out of fear of the "opponent" taking office. When people focus more on supporting what they truly believe, other parties can stand a chance. Simply labeling yourself as a Republican/Democrat will you give you support over the other.

Um... That's one of the two meanings of the word "refute":





No. He responded to my statement with a statement which rested on the exact assumption I was refuting (or disagreeing with, if that makes you feel better).

I disagreed with the assumption that opposing the things on this groups list is equivalent with oppressing a group of people (homosexuals in this case).

He responded by saying that when you deny a group their rights, we are oppressing that group. Which while certainly true, is completely irrelevant as a response to my statement unless he's assuming that the things on the list are necessary to prevent the denial of rights and thus represents oppression of the group.

Um... Which is exactly what I said wasn't true. Hence the /whoosh. He completely missed what I was disagreeing with and went off on some other thing. I questioned an assumption, and he just repeated the same assumption again. Which seems terrifically unhelpful, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not going to tarnish the brilliance of my last post by engaging in a pointless argument with you.

Using 'refute' to mean 'deny' is a fairly common mistake, but should not be regarded as a proper meaning because to do so is to conflate proof with denial. This is obviously undesirable.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I'm not sure if I follow. If a candidate has to drop out of the race due to the media projections causing a lack of support, then I believe they have a right to complain.



Why stop there? You could go down to local city elections. We aren't talking about those elected seats. Unless your argument is that one political office has no pull/power, then you have no point.

Correction, they have a logical REASON to complain, you don't have a logical reason to dismiss their complaints.



I'm not denying that, that's just not the point of the discussion. Your excellent local city job performance will not alter the media's projections on future elections. Hence why it's irrelevant. Now, I will give you credit because if I understand you correctly, you're referencing people who only vote for the President and nothing else. That is a legitimate point, but it doesn't alter anything for the person who did vote in every local, state and national election. The outcome for the presidential election is still the same. Just because other elections aren't "jacked" doesn't overwrite the errors with the election in question.



Well, maybe I wasn't clear, my bad... I'm referring to the scenarios where it matters, local cities matters much less. I was primarily referring to the General Election. I don't know the record of Governors, but I'm sure they fall in the same category.

better to be a bigot then a blithering moron.

Didn't she recently say that the USSR was a threat to the USA?

I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

She's the anti-Christ!