Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mo3 said:
I am not sure why you would say this. I answered “no” in post #231.

You responded to my “no” in your post #233.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it really matters, I answered the question twice and still can’t get an answer to any of mine… Usually happens when one knows that an honest answer won’t help their side of a debate.
 
mtbender said:
Not sure if it really matters, I answered the question twice and still can’t get an answer to any of mine… Usually happens when one knows that an honest answer won’t help their side of a debate.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely false! Anyone can read your post #273 and see you did not answer yes or no. We still don’t know how you would vote on abortion.
 
mo3 said:
This is absolutely false! Anyone can read your post #273 and see you did not answer yes or no. We still don’t know how you would vote on abortion.
Click to expand...
Think you misread my post… I was saying that MoM2 seems to be avoiding a lot of questions.
 
mo3 said:
I am not sure why you would say this. I answered “no” in post #231.

You responded to my “no” in your post #233.
Click to expand...
Okay I see that. And I take it that you were unable to refute my answer. You can go to post 233 to see that response.
mo3 said:
Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time
Click to expand...
Yes, assuming that it is a valid vote. I don’t support abortion full stop; but unless the legal system is as such that a citizen can have an effect on a human rights issues merely by the number votes in an election, then I don’t see it as relevant. Just like you cannot change the right to interracial marriage by voting, you cannot change the right to abortion by voting if a state has granted women the human right to have an abortion.

Another problem arises by reducing human rights to a voting system. It would mean that all human rights at any given time would be vulnerable since their definitions as a human right is based purely upon the number of votes.
 
mtbender said:
Free will always offers two options… not sure the point you are trying to make with that. Can I, certainly – I can also paint my cat purple and call it a dog.

Relevance?

And I noticed as much as I have chased you down this rabbit hole you still have not answered my question…
Click to expand...
This has not answered my question. Mo3 understood and answered my question.
 
mtbender said:
Question:

Answer:

What part of the question did I miss?
Click to expand...
The part you obviously did not understand. Unless of course you are saying that people have the right to vote against legally defined human rights.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
The part you obviously did not understand. Unless of course you are saying that people have the right to vote against legally defined human rights.
Click to expand...
You asked if it was possible, and I answered that direct question with a direct answer, yet you still avoid my questions – which I can only to take to mean one of two things: it will hurt your argument, or you have deflected this long in order to formulate a coherent answer.

You question was about ability – do people have the ability to vote a certain way - and the answer is yes. You have already separated morality from legal rights in your original post so therefore anything is possible
 
mtbender said:
You asked if it was possible, and I answered that direct question with a direct answer, yet you still avoid my questions
Click to expand...
Its not clear to me what your answer is.

Do you have a “legal right” to vote against interracial marriage; is it possible to make interracial marriage illegal by the highest number of votes alone. Can a legally defined human right be voted out through an election process. Yes or no.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its not clear to me what your answer is.

Do you have a “legal right” to vote against interracial marriage; is it possible to make interracial marriage illegal by the highest number of votes alone. Can a legally defined human right be voted out through an election process. Yes or no.
Click to expand...
That is not the same as original question, and to continue to entertain your one sided conversation when you repeatedly avoid reciprocating would be to a waste of time. It seems you are unwilling to enter into a debate and only wish to have a one sided conversation until you can come up with a question that will get the answer you want. With that said, I believe I have wasted enough time on this, as you cannot or will not answer any questions I have posed to you, for I believe you know they will certainly counter your original argument.
 
mtbender said:
That is not the same as original question
Click to expand...
I have nothing more to discuss with you, since what I said, and the context in which it was asked, was clear and evident. Mo3 clearly understood and answered the question. You have simply been avoiding the reality of the question, and now you have come up with this ridiculous excuse. The excuse of course was made in order to further avoid answering the question.

You are surely good at deception.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I have nothing more to discuss with you, since what I said, and the context in which it was asked, was clear and evident. Mo3 clearly understood and answered the question. You have simply been avoiding the reality of the question, and now you have come up with this ridiculous excuse. The excuse of course was made in order to further avoid answering the question.

You are surely good at deception.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving my point…
Despite my attempt to have a give-and-take discussion you are not willing to reciprocate till you get the answer you want. In the absence of that you insert inflammatory comments which have no weight or bearing on the discussion – which is typically occurs when ones argument is falling apart.
With that said, best of luck finding someone to vindicate your claims.
 
mtbender said:
Thank you for proving my point…
Despite my attempt to have a give-and-take discussion you are not willing to reciprocate till you get the answer you want.
Click to expand...
I asked you a question, you refused to answer it. Instead you misrepresented what I asked and made a straw-man of it. I than clarified the question in such a way that you would not be able to misrepresent it without making yourself look shady. You then accused me of changing the question so as to avoid answering the question. I made note of that fact, and here you are again trying to misrepresent the discussion. That’s what deceptive and dishonest people do.

I asked you a question first (correction; I was asking somebody else a question and you butted in). And until you answer it, you are dame right that I am not going to answer yours. I am not interested in you blind reactionary nonsense.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I asked you a question, you refused to answer it. Instead you misrepresented what I asked and made a straw-man of it. I than clarified the question in such a way that you would not be able to misrepresent it without making yourself look shady. You then accused me of changing the question so as to avoid answering the question. I made note of that fact, and here you are again trying to misrepresent the discussion. That’s what deceptive and dishonest people do.

I asked you a question first. And until you answer it, you are dame right that I am not going to answer yours. I am not interested in you blind reactionary nonsense.
Click to expand...
You continue to highlight your maturity and ability to have a civil debate/discussion….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top