Legislation for gay marriage is approved in the UK House of Commons!

[DeistPaladin]

Can't agree, Violet.

He's making statements of his belief as if they were facts and then using those "facts" to justify his beliefs. I'm telling him to knock it off. Beliefs should be stated as beliefs.

He can believe in his heart about what is or is not natural or what the body does or does not support but if he presents them as if they were fact, I'm going to say, "back up the truck, Hoss, who do you think you are?"

[Violet]

Can't agree, Violet.

He's making statements of his belief as if they were facts and then using those "facts" to justify his beliefs. I'm telling him to knock it off. Beliefs should be stated as beliefs.

All facts are beliefs. And every one of them should be stated as such.

Facts in his understanding are not the same facts of your understanding. If anything, scientific facts should prefaced... as the starting point is belief, not science.

He can believe in his heart about what is or is not natural or what the body does or does not support but if he presents them as if they were fact, I'm going to say, "back up the truck, Hoss, who do you think you are?"

Don't get me wrong... I'm totally on science's side here. Unless he's misrepresenting science by saying it's saying things it isn't (I haven't actually read his posts, just trusting him to not be that stupid)... where's the issue?

[frankiej]

Nope, there's only one way to have sex, and that's with penis and vagina. Missionary style.

[DeistPaladin]

All facts are beliefs. And every one of them should be stated as such.

That's not how we typically discuss medical matters, and we have delved into that with AT's bare assertions on what is or isn't physically healthy or what is or isn't a "mental illness". If someone starts handing out medical advice or judgments about issues of mental health, such statements typically require a disclaimer that they are opinion or that the person isn't a qualified medical professional.

Don't get ME wrong, he's entitled to his beliefs and to express them ...as beliefs.

Presenting beliefs as statements of fact starts to cross the line into arrogance. This is an especially disturbing trend among conservatives these days, that many people seem to think they're not just entitled to their own opinions but also to their own versions of science. We also see this tactic used in discussions of global warming, evolution, vaccinations, etc.

Now I will modify my admonishment of him that he can, as an alternative to getting a medical degree, PhD in psychology or PhD in Zoology, link to peer-reviewed studies by other bone-fide sources to support his beliefs, that he may present his beliefs as if they were facts.

In advance, let me state that links to Focus on the Family or other biased or possibly quackery sources is not satisfactory.

[Violet]

That's not how we typically discuss medical matters, and we have delved into that with AT's bare assertions on what is or isn't physically healthy or what is or isn't a "mental illness". If someone starts handing out medical advice or judgments about issues of mental health, such statements typically require a disclaimer that they are opinion or that the person isn't a qualified medical professional.

Don't get ME wrong, he's entitled to his beliefs and to express them ...as beliefs.

Yeah... and that applies for doctors and the like.

I rather think (after (brief) skimming), that AT is taking a philosophical stance on this matter. Could I ask you to show me a specific example or two that set you off like this? Reading over these posts are teeth-gratingly aggravating... but I'm still very surprised at the level of venom in the response.

If he's speaking medically without speaking medically: it's usually considered to be socially improper to not have such a disclaimer... though why he would think to possess such authority in the first place is beyond me.

Presenting beliefs as statements of fact starts to cross the line into arrogance. This is an especially disturbing trend among conservatives these days, that many people seem to think they're not just entitled to their own opinions but also to their own versions of science. We also see this tactic used in discussions of global warming, evolution, vaccinations, etc.

I think it's a disturbing trend upon a lot more people than just conservatives... but I also don't believe it's changed over-much in recent years.

Science is an intersubjective attempt at discovering and using the material... any group of people *are* 'entitled' (wasn't aware there was a barrier?) to their version of science. But they should specify that it's their version when speaking regarding it, since the wide majority of the world uses another one. It'd be like a linux user speaking their version of operating system without clarifying that it isn't PC (or mac) to the layman non-computer user: it has a high chance to misinform.

I think intentionally misinforming is ridiculousness incarnate, but I also don't think that A Theist is doing so. Regardless of what misinformation he might be providing: it's not intentional. Or maybe it is and we've played the fools all along

Now I will modify my admonishment of him that he can, as an alternative to getting a medical degree, PhD in psychology or PhD in Zoology, link to peer-reviewed studies by other bone-fide sources to support his beliefs, that he may present his beliefs as if they were facts.

In advance, let me state that links to Focus on the Family or other biased or possibly quackery sources is not satisfactory.

Yes, if he's speaking scientifically as we usually understand it... linking scientific evidence would be ideal. Otherwise: everything he says will likely be scientifically dismissed.

I say, let him link what he wants. All science is possibly quackery, and probably biased... such should be irrelevant in the summation of the science itself.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Well mr. a theist. Tell me, is this lifestyle?

Go fuck yourself or your inbred church male friends...you discriminating asshole.

[A Theist]

Regardless of celibacy, I would still find romantic relationships between same gender couples to be unnatural. I would also add that since natural physiology does not support same gender sex, I believe it's a lifestyle that people choose for themselves rather than being born gay or lesbian.

You are free to believe whatever woo and crackpottery you like but stop making definitive statements about nature, what physiology does or does not support, etc.

You are neither a biologist nor are you a medical doctor.

You are not qualified to make statements about what nature or physiology does or does not support.

In future, please preface all your ignorant and unfounded beliefs which are completely unsupported by and in contradiction of professional and scholarly opinion with the qualifier "I believe" without any justifying "since this or that is true".

You are neither a biologist nor are you a medical doctor.
You are not qualified to make statements about what nature or physiology does or does not support.

...and neither are you! But yet you state your position and act as though you shouldn't be challenged, which is the all too familiar and usual arrogance of the leftwing

[Violet]

You are neither a biologist nor are you a medical doctor.
You are not qualified to make statements about what nature or physiology does or does not support.

...and neither are you! But yet you state your position and act as though you shouldn't be challenged, which is the all too familiar and usual arrogance of the leftwing

Both the leftwing and the rightwing can be arrogant. I just find it hilarious that you're throwing politics into a scientific/philosophical disagreement.

Yup... that'll get you somewhere

[A Theist]

Well mr. a theist. Tell me, is this lifestyle?

Go fuck yourself or your inbred church male friends...you discriminating asshole.

So what...that still doesn't make it right. Their anatomies aren't designed for same gender sex either.

---

...and neither are you! But yet you state your position and act as though you shouldn't be challenged, which is the all too familiar and usual arrogance of the leftwing

Both the leftwing and the rightwing can be arrogant. I just find it hilarious that you're throwing politics into a scientific/philosophical disagreement.

Yup... that'll get you somewhere

Which was a response to this quote from DP....

Presenting beliefs as statements of fact starts to cross the line into arrogance. This is an especially disturbing trend among conservatives these days,

Does your response also apply to him as well since he did the same?

[DeistPaladin]

...and neither are you! But yet you state your position and act as though you shouldn't be challenged, which is the all too familiar and usual arrogance of the leftwing

My position is at least based on scientific consensus. Yours is based on ignorance, bare assertions and bigotry.

You may feel in your heart that homosexuality is a mental illness but psychologists, as reflected in the peer-reviewed DSM, have reached a different conclusion and did so a long time ago (somewhere in the 70s, as I recall). Like it or not, there it is.

I have never stated that I shouldn't be challenged. Quite to the contrary, I have repeatedly said you are entitled to your beliefs and express them as beliefs. However, when you push your beliefs as if they were facts, I will call you out on your arrogance.

You conservatives whine all the time about how the left is so elitist and snobby. This is, quite frankly, simply a cover for anti-intellectual arrogance and bigotry. Sorry that reality has such a liberal bias but you're not entitled to your own facts.

---

Both the leftwing and the rightwing can be arrogant. I just find it hilarious that you're throwing politics into a scientific/philosophical disagreement.

Yup... that'll get you somewhere

Which was a response to this quote from DP....

Presenting beliefs as statements of fact starts to cross the line into arrogance. This is an especially disturbing trend among conservatives these days,

Does your response also apply to him as well since he did the same?

And once again we see the "both sides do it" trench that conservatives run and hide in every time they get called out and they can't justify their own behavior. The formal logical fallacy here is called ad hominem tu quoque.

And once again, the problem with this last line of defense is "both sides don't."

I offered specific examples where conservatives are science deniers. When discussing global warming or evolution, conservative Christians are fond of indulging in conspiracy theories. They trust science to fly them in planes, cure their diseases and power their computers but when it tells them what they don't want to hear, suddenly the science of climatology has been taken over by conspirators or an atheist cabal has subverted the process of peer review on evolution or the gay bullies have forced psychologists to give them the green light.

Now you offer me an example of liberals doing the same thing or drop the glib "well, both sides do it".