|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:41 pm
This guy in a current debate over circumcision is completely illogical. I hate to be rude like that. He uses circular logic and illogical reasoning’s. It is EXTREMELY difficult to fight against circular logic. It is a logical fallacy; i.e. it isn't right. Nevertheless, it is driving me crazy. He is saying stuff like "Don't like circumcision, don't have one." He keeps stating, "I am trying to tell other parents what to do." I am not telling other parents what to do. I am protecting the right to bodily integrity of the children. Parent's can't do whatever they want with their children. Children have every much the right to bodily integrity like you and I do.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:57 pm
What are his points for circumsision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:14 pm
Deo_Machina What are his points for circumcision? I have no right to tell parents what to do. It is a parents right to do what they want with their children. Easily enough, these are arguments that can be taken down with one snap. However, circular logic is the route of all evil I tell you gonk http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68397&start=80I'm TheCaliforniaLife and he is LostSoul3412.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:27 pm
This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over.
I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery?
(Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:08 am
Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:12 pm
My Conscience Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB? Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:26 pm
Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB? Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.Maybe I interpreted this wrong. You are supporting circumcision based on religious claims? Maybe I am taking the sarcasm too literally xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:14 pm
My Conscience Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB? Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.Maybe I interpreted this wrong. You are supporting circumcision based on religious claims? Maybe I am taking the sarcasm too literally xd No no no, I'm against RIC in the case of religious reasons (and any other reason) Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was that here on Earth, laws are commonly made in areas that restrict the rights of some people and are made only for the sake of religion. These legal systems are also made by humans and as a result need constant tweaking to catch up to our lives. I was just saying it must be nice to live in a society that doesn't have such gaping flaws in law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:39 am
Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB? Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.Maybe I interpreted this wrong. You are supporting circumcision based on religious claims? Maybe I am taking the sarcasm too literally xd No no no, I'm against RIC in the case of religious reasons (and any other reason) Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was that here on Earth, laws are commonly made in areas that restrict the rights of some people and are made only for the sake of religion. These legal systems are also made by humans and as a result need constant tweaking to catch up to our lives. I was just saying it must be nice to live in a society that doesn't have such gaping flaws in law. That is what I thought you meant. I knew you weren’t going to go pro-religious-impositions on me gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:25 pm
My Conscience Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! This is why I like to stick to debating on one site. I can barely handle the idiots here. For a while I did a little debating in the gURL forums, but those are terrible. Think of the ED if CB completely took over. I really don't like to debate RIC, because I really don't haver much of an argument other than BI. That should be the be-all end-all to the discussion, but I like to enter a debate with more. As a response to his main point: If parents are allowed to have a say in their infant's BI in that instance, why stop there? Should parents be allowed to force sex on their infant or for it to go through cosmetic surgery? (Of course not - those are illegal. rolleyes But RIC falls under the same circumstances and therefore should also be illegal.) This is why that guy is so ... illogical. He said, "Parents can do whatever they want with their child just as long as it abides by the provisions set by law." I just want to bang my head against the desk. To better explain my anger I will quote something else of his. "No one has the right to tell a parent what to do with their child. No one has the right to impose ideology." I am like AHH!!!!!!! Every one of those ******** provisions that were set was because someone is telling them what to do with their child over some ideology. He doesn't seem to get that. After I tell him that, he says. "If circumcision was a violation of bodily integrity, it would be illegal." HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO DUMB? Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.Maybe I interpreted this wrong. You are supporting circumcision based on religious claims? Maybe I am taking the sarcasm too literally xd No no no, I'm against RIC in the case of religious reasons (and any other reason) Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was that here on Earth, laws are commonly made in areas that restrict the rights of some people and are made only for the sake of religion. These legal systems are also made by humans and as a result need constant tweaking to catch up to our lives. I was just saying it must be nice to live in a society that doesn't have such gaping flaws in law. That is what I thought you meant. I knew you weren’t going to go pro-religious-impositions on me gonk That woule be against my religion xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:08 pm
Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! My Conscience Toga! Toga! Must be nice to live in a world where the legal system is perfect and thinks of every scenario, and wouldn't dream of making exceptions in human rights based on the religion of some people.Maybe I interpreted this wrong. You are supporting circumcision based on religious claims? Maybe I am taking the sarcasm too literally xd No no no, I'm against RIC in the case of religious reasons (and any other reason) Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was that here on Earth, laws are commonly made in areas that restrict the rights of some people and are made only for the sake of religion. These legal systems are also made by humans and as a result need constant tweaking to catch up to our lives. I was just saying it must be nice to live in a society that doesn't have such gaping flaws in law. That is what I thought you meant. I knew you weren’t going to go pro-religious-impositions on me gonk That woule be against my religion xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
