Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6951
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > > with.
> > I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> > attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
>
> And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority
Nope. Not at all.
DS
> > > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > > with.
> > I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> > attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
>
> And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority
Nope. Not at all.
DS
#6952
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > > with.
> > I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> > attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
>
> And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority
Nope. Not at all.
DS
> > > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > > with.
> > I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> > attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
>
> And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority
Nope. Not at all.
DS
#6953
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> > > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> > > any reality.
>
> > Why is it a slippery slope argument?
>
> If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
> up. I am not your debate coach.
I know the definition of a slippery slope argument, but you didn't explain how
that definition was met.
#6954
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> > > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> > > any reality.
>
> > Why is it a slippery slope argument?
>
> If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
> up. I am not your debate coach.
I know the definition of a slippery slope argument, but you didn't explain how
that definition was met.
#6955
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> > > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> > > any reality.
>
> > Why is it a slippery slope argument?
>
> If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
> up. I am not your debate coach.
I know the definition of a slippery slope argument, but you didn't explain how
that definition was met.
#6956
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
#6957
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
#6958
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
DS
#6959
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
x-no-archive: yes
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> > > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>> >
>> > By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>> > psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.
>>
>> "Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?
>>
Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
with credentials?"
>> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
>> type of activity they each engage in
>
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
....If love is all that is needed to allow a class to marry. Now THERE is
a slippery slope.
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> > > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>> >
>> > By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>> > psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.
>>
>> "Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?
>>
Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
with credentials?"
>> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
>> type of activity they each engage in
>
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
....If love is all that is needed to allow a class to marry. Now THERE is
a slippery slope.
#6960
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
x-no-archive: yes
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> > > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>> >
>> > By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>> > psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.
>>
>> "Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?
>>
Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
with credentials?"
>> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
>> type of activity they each engage in
>
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
....If love is all that is needed to allow a class to marry. Now THERE is
a slippery slope.
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> > > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>> >
>> > By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>> > psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.
>>
>> "Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?
>>
Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
with credentials?"
>> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
>> type of activity they each engage in
>
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
....If love is all that is needed to allow a class to marry. Now THERE is
a slippery slope.