RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
August 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm by Aristocatt.)
The difference between my scenario and your scenario is that there is a small concern that mine could happen. No one thinks your scenario will happen. I was, however, willing to accept both scenarios as ridiculously unlikely and leave it at that.
In addition, you don't get to argue with the scenario. Your previous rebuttals were bad even if they were at all true. This is, again, because we are not discussing how we would stop extinction via overpopulation or underpopulation from occurring, we are merely pointing out that they are plausible scenarios in some way shape or form. When I told you that homosexuals would have kids to save the world, you told me that they might not and we shouldn't rely on them. You ignored evidence to the contrary in favor of providing a plausible account, but then you attempted to provide evidence to the contrary when I presented my account.
I am sorry that you got "lost in the forest so quickly", I wasn't really expecting that.
In addition, you don't get to argue with the scenario. Your previous rebuttals were bad even if they were at all true. This is, again, because we are not discussing how we would stop extinction via overpopulation or underpopulation from occurring, we are merely pointing out that they are plausible scenarios in some way shape or form. When I told you that homosexuals would have kids to save the world, you told me that they might not and we shouldn't rely on them. You ignored evidence to the contrary in favor of providing a plausible account, but then you attempted to provide evidence to the contrary when I presented my account.
I am sorry that you got "lost in the forest so quickly", I wasn't really expecting that.
