I can follow a conversation very well. That’s how you dug yourself into this mess.

What false notion am I promoting?

I’ve dug no mess. I asserted two things that I amply proved with links and comments made by commenters here. You offered opinion and nothing else. That you beat your chest claiming some kind of debate victory is just pathetic. You don’t convince me. Again, maybe you’re jsut trying to convince yourself?

Depends on your threshold of “many many”. A few to be sure, but even when I have I try not to make that the crux of my argument. If I do then I’m poisoning the well, and it’s also been my experience that most homophobes tend to not make the best, most logical arguments so I can poke holes in the beliefs without a whole lot of effort.

Considering your original claim is you only did it once to someone who insulted you, I’d say showing even more than one makes you deceitful. B ut, you’ve said it many times.

I repeat myself because people keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. I’ll shut up about red herrings and non-sequiturs as soon as people stop trying to use them as arguments to support their beliefs.

Like many in your community, you’re narcissistic. You have to repeat yourself, to convince yourself. Because you can’t allow yourself to admit you’re wrong. Even when it’s held in your face.

Forming an opinion is easy; forming an informed opinion is harder and takes more time. It’s when you rush it that you’re more liable to reach a hasty, perhaps even illogical conclusion you might have avoided if you had stopped to think about it a little more carefully.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Cop out. Kinda cowardly. I would bet money you support it.

Why do you waste your time?

The perhaps naive hope that you’ll learn from your mistakes.

Little of what you write is even believable.

Really? Like what?

You’ve called many many people homophobe. Just out of the blue in conversations you’ve had.

Depends on your threshold of “many many”. A few to be sure, but even when I have I try not to make that the crux of my argument. If I do then I’m poisoning the well, and it’s also been my experience that most homophobes tend to not make the best, most logical arguments so I can poke holes in the beliefs without a whole lot of effort.

You’ve also failed to even understand what people were trying to relate to you because you have this God complex that seems to judge what may or not be talked about.

If not being swayed by illogical arguments means one has a God complex then we need a lot more God complexes in the world.

Which also become convenient for your agenda.

What’s my agenda again (beyond logic, of course)?

I’m not sure if you just can’t follow a conversation or if you’re being obtuse to promote a false notion you seem to struggle to even make yourself believe.

I can follow a conversation very well. That’s how you dug yourself into this mess.

What false notion am I promoting?

I’m pretty sure that why you resort to just repetition.

I repeat myself because people keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. I’ll shut up about red herrings and non-sequiturs as soon as people stop trying to use them as arguments to support their beliefs.

Do you believe the age of consent should be lowered or not? I say no. How hard can it be to form an opinion?

hawkdriver on March 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Forming an opinion is easy; forming an informed opinion is harder and takes more time. It’s when you rush it that you’re more liable to reach a hasty, perhaps even illogical conclusion you might have avoided if you had stopped to think about it a little more carefully.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Why do you waste your time? Little of what you write is even believable. You’ve called many many people homophobe. Just out of the blue in conversations you’ve had. You’ve also failed to even understand what people were trying to relate to you because you have this God complex that seems to judge what may or not be talked about. Which also become convenient for your agenda. I’m not sure if you just can’t follow a conversation or if you’re being obtuse to promote a false notion you seem to struggle to even make yourself believe. I’m pretty sure that why you resort to just repetition.

Do you believe the age of consent should be lowered or not? I say no. How hard can it be to form an opinion?

Who said this in the first place? Please, just stop. Your comments are offensively inane.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:49 AM

I’m just trying to figure out why you have tried so hard to sidetrack the discussion by bringing up wholly unrelated issues of discrimination and consent laws.

Every time you call someone a homophobe it is a nonsequitar and a red herring.

If I were trying to discredit everything someone says strictly because they’re a homophone and I ignore their argument then that’s poisoning the well and that’s a form of a red herring, and that’s why I try to focus on the argument rather than the person making it. For example I’ve not said anything about you as a person; I’m focusing on your fallacious arguments.

But you know that. You’ve had this same conversation with a dozen other folks and you always do the same thing.

I wouldn’t say “dozens” but I have run up against a fair number of people who use logically fallacious arguments in support of their cause. It’s not my fault other people make bad arguments.

You think “you” decide what’s fair game to address or not.

I didn’t write the book on fallacious arguments; I just point them out when I come across them.

The questions you can’t answer, well they stem from fallcious agruments you can’t be bothered with.

If a bad or illogical, fallacious argument has been commenced then there’s no reason to continue down that path. I personally don’t feel the need to contribute to a distraction.

But you try to morph any aspect of the gay rights movement debate by turning the conversation into some poor slob having to defend themselves from you asserting they’re a homophobe or a racist because you equate your “plight” to the civil rights movement of the sixties.

I haven’t called you a homophobe. I don’t think I called melle one. I don’t think I’ve called anyone a racist. I’ll call anyone, poor slob or otherwise, out on their fallacious arguments but that’s because I’m a big fan of logic.

And whose plight am I trying to equate with what because of why? I have to ask because you claimed to know my real secret thoughts on the age of consent and I have no idea what you’re talking about here and if you have a way of knowing what I think better than I do I’m eager to find out what’s going on in my head.

Pathetic. Your entire routine.

If sound, logical arguments aren’t your cup of tea then there’s not much I can do about that. I guess some people have different tastes than me.

I simply asked if you supported lowering the age of consent and you couldn’t answer. You’re afraid to answer.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:56 AM

I could answer if I put some thought into it and really carefully considered the issues. It’s not that I’m afraid, it’s that I’m interested in the topic being discussed, you’re trying to distract from it and I’m trying to understand why you’re so dead-set on sidetracking it into something completely unrelated.

Every time you call someone a homophobe it is a nonsequitar and a red herring. But you know that. You’ve had this same conversation with a dozen other folks and you always do the same thing. You think “you” decide what’s fair game to address or not. The questions you can’t answer, well they stem from fallcious agruments you can’t be bothered with. But you try to morph any aspect of the gay rights movement debate by turning the conversation into some poor slob having to defend themselves from you asserting they’re a homophobe or a racist because you equate your “plight” to the civil rights movement of the sixties.

Pathetic. Your entire routine.

I simply asked if you supported lowering the age of consent and you couldn’t answer. You’re afraid to answer.

If lowering the age of consent must directly follow legalizing gay marriage then state why and how you know this to be true. If you can do that then it would no longer be a non-sequitur. If I’m mischaracterizing as a red herring your links to groups getting sued for discrimination then explain that.

Who said this in the first place? Please, just stop. Your comments are offensively inane.

I’m not leveling charges at you personally, I’m just pointing out how your arguments aren’t logically valid when it comes to the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

You’re making claims to comments not made. But it’s what you do. You’re either not bright or the most disingenuous commenter here. I’m not even sure what you think you’re reading to come up with the points you’re trying to make.

First, you haven’t done anything of the kind.

Did you perform as poorly in reading comprehension as you did in Logic 101?

Second, an “anecote” is a short or interesting account, which “may” depict a real incident or person. I’ve offered no anecdote to any of what I have specifically asserted in this thread.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Two people offered their short personal accounts (anecdotes) of why they believe the age of consent should be lowered and you have extrapolated those two isolated bits of evidence to….

I’ve asserted that there’s a growing sentiment to lower the age of concent and that opinion is voiced with support here on Hot Air. I’ve provided ample actually comments made in that regard proving my assertion.

….. a conclusion that there’s a spreading desire for the age of consent to go down. You clearly oppose that idea and you bring it up in the context of discussion on the legalization of gay marriage. No matter how much you might want everyone to think that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the age of consent going down, no matter how much you yourself may believe it, it’s a conclusion arrived at through fallacious logic.

Not an anecdote.

Citing two short comments on one random website is purely anecdotal. If you search the entire internet and come up with a few more it’s still anecdotal. And if you do manage to turn up something legitimate that shows there’s real movement to lower the age of consent it will all still be a non sequitur in the gay marriage discussion.

I was also told by another commenter that they were unaware of any significant activity with gays suing churches or businesses. I’ve proved just a few of the many that can be garnered from a simple search through the internet.

That you did.

Not an anecdote.

Not an anecdote but still a red herring in the gay marriage discussion.

Your characterizations of comments are again, nothing more than your own rationalizations. The more you comment, the more you mischaracterize anything I’ve said above.

If lowering the age of consent must directly follow legalizing gay marriage then state why and how you know this to be true. If you can do that then it would no longer be a non-sequitur. If I’m mischaracterizing as a red herring your links to groups getting sued for discrimination then explain that.

So, there’s that also. At this point I’m actually starting to scratch my head and wonder why I’m continuting to even entertian the charges you level at me, (and really, anyone here you engage in that manner should ask themselves that) and am back to considering it a classic waste of time other than the fact that I’ve apparently introduced a few new words that you seem to have taken a liking to.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I’m not leveling charges at you personally, I’m just pointing out how your arguments aren’t logically valid when it comes to the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

I’m not trying to disprove your anecdotes, just to show that the conclusion you’ve drawn from them isn’t a logical argument against the legalization of gay marriage. And I’ve done that.

First, you haven’t done anything of the kind.

Second, an “anecote” is a short or interesting account, which “may” depict a real incident or person. I’ve offered no anecdote to any of what I have specifically asserted in this thread. I’ve asserted that there’s a growing sentiment to lower the age of concent and that opinion is voiced with support here on Hot Air. I’ve provided ample actually comments made in that regard proving my assertion. Not an anecdote. I was also told by another commenter that they were unaware of any significant activity with gays suing churches or businesses. I’ve proved just a few of the many that can be garnered from a simple search through the internet. Not an anecdote.

Your characterizations of comments are again, nothing more than your own rationalizations. The more you comment, the more you mischaracterize anything I’ve said above.

So, there’s that also. At this point I’m actually starting to scratch my head and wonder why I’m continuting to even entertian the charges you level at me, (and really, anyone here you engage in that manner should ask themselves that) and am back to considering it a classic waste of time other than the fact that I’ve apparently introduced a few new words that you seem to have taken a liking to.

You always end up insulting and inventing exchanges that never happened.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The exchange I invented can be found on the 7th comment page of this thread. Relevant comment is here:

alchemist19 on March 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

You claiming a fallacy in my argument doesn’t make it so just because you’ve said it.

True enough. If I had just said “Your argument is fallacious,” then that would be lazy of me even if your argument was in fact fallacious. That’s why I took the time to go through which fallacy you had used and why your argument fit so perfectly into said fallacy.

You do that to nearly everyone you exchange with though.

It’s not my fault that none of the opponents of gay marriage have yet to make an argument that wasn’t fallacious. I’m really hoping someone eventually does.

Regardless of the exchange, you simply proclaim, you’ve proven your point.

I try to take the time to prove my point. Like with you where I explain what the type of fallacy you were employing was and why you can’t logically do that.

You’ve neither disproved a single thing I’ve stated or introduced a single fact that proving what you’ve said.

I’m not trying to disprove your anecdotes, just to show that the conclusion you’ve drawn from them isn’t a logical argument against the legalization of gay marriage. And I’ve done that.

So, there’s that.

There is that.

Your commentary as a whole is a case study in rationalization.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’m not rationalizing anything because I’m not defending anything other than the use of logic in constructing arguments; I’m just explaining in the goriest detail necessary that you don’t have a logical argument. But if we’re trying to figure out who is engaged in defensive excuse-making then I think it’s more likely the one of us who made a fallacious argument (or arguments now that you’ve switched from non-sequiturs to red herrings) and then proclaimed “You always do this!” when taken to task. I understand the temptation to attack the messenger when you can’t attack the message so I don’t really hold it against you. My only hope is that you learn from this experience.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You claiming a fallacy in my argument doesn’t make it so just because you’ve said it. You do that to nearly everyone you exchange with though. Regardless of the exchange, you simply proclaim, you’ve proven your point. You’ve neither disproved a single thing I’ve stated or introduced a single fact that proving what you’ve said.

So, there’s that.

Your commentary as a whole is a case study in rationalization.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM

You always end up insulting and inventing exchanges that never happened.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Hey, look at that! You’ve changed fallacies and moved on from non-sequiturs to the seemingly more common red herring arguments against gay marriage.

Gay marriage is at best incidental in all these examples. These people/groups are all being sued because they have run up against anti-discrimination laws. We actually went through this a way upthread. If you oppose anti-discrimination laws then say so and take up that issue. The gay marriage debate is a separate matter.

I’m sorry, but your comments are just a joke. Not worth the time.

I’m just trying to help you learn from your mistakes so you don’t make them again. If that’s not worth your time then it would explain a lot.

And you’re pretty disingenuous. You said you called one guy a homophobe because he called you a name? You’ve actually called quite a few people homophobes. Over respectful comments and questions made to you. Don’t bother calling me on it because I’d be happy to post them.

As I said, to my recollection I’ve only directly called one person on here a homophobe and that was after they said that gay people are lacking any merit and that his fear of gays was not irrational, but rather it was based on facts and years of observations. I stand by my characterization. If there are other examples of me doing it that I’m not remembering then you’re welcome to post it and I’ll take a look at why I said what I said but even if you find an example of me throwing the term around loosely it won’t make your argument any less fallacious.

I’m not going to play your game of inventing conversation that didn’t take place and points you didn’t win or whatever you think you’re doing.

Why would I need to invent “winning” anything? It would be much easier to just point out above where I proved your argument was fallacious if I wanted to “win” one.

Again, the bottom line is you can’t answer a question. You won’t answer a question. “You” decide it wasn’t pertinate to the thread. Yet you call people a homophobe and invoke the latent dodge charge all the time. What does either of those departures from the comments have to do with any debate you’ve been involved with here. Nothing.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:28 AM

I’m not sure whether you took my advice to use the Google or not but it seems that just to be on the safe side I’m going to have to do this. I’ll use Wikipedia’s definition rather than a textbook’s so you can check it for yourself “An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case).” Wikipedia even lists an appeal to probability fallacy as being a specific type of non-sequitur, and a non-sequitur is… “Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.” You’ve said (or at least you’ve seemed to be saying because you still refuse to say what your goal with the argument was) that if we legalize gay marriage then the age of consent is going to be lowered. That is not necessarily true. Non sequitur. Fallacious argument.

The same church is now suing New Jersey.

There are a ton of these and I’m quite sure if you actually look, you’ll find them.

Gay organizations are routinely suing churches, church association and Christian businesses. You can support the tactic if you think that’s what you guys need to be doing. Just don’t say it doesn’t happen.

You would be wrong.

You may think that is true but I remain skeptical that this is really so. When people are turned away from more and more places just because of their faith and you still say this, perhaps then I’ll believe it.

You would be calling me a liar then. I’ve already been turned away from places because I was military. You think it doesn’t already happen?

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Please elaborate.

JohnAGJ on March 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Are you acting like you didn’t see the correction I made? Here, it was right above the comment you left.

Are your convicting convictions to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:21 AM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

Nothing turned up about churches in America being sued because they do not provide same-sex weddings. Perhaps you’d care to give some links?

Well, one you’re changing to one specific search. You said earlier you weren’t seeing the lawsuits against churches or business.

Sued for not selling a house to gay wedding franchise.

You would be wrong.

You may think that is true but I remain skeptical that this is really so. When people are turned away from more and more places just because of their faith and you still say this, perhaps then I’ll believe it.

If I went to an atheist photographer and asked him or her to photograph a religious ceremony I was having, I take that chance of objection. If they declined based on not supporting making images of something they truly thought was wrong, I would certainly not sue them for that. If they choose to not promore an activity or behavior, what right do I have to try to force them? On the other hand.

The same right as someone who was refused service because of their race. This goes back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which SCOTUS has upheld more than once as being constitutional. While I personally wouldn’t bother suing in most cases when it came to say a florist or photographer, I sure as heck would when it came to a hotel, gas station, etc. that did likewise.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:20 AM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

Nothing turned up about churches in America being sued because they do not provide same-sex weddings. Perhaps you’d care to give some links?

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Please elaborate.

Are your convicting convictions to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I seriously question whether this would bother you as much if say a gay-owned business refused service to a customer based solely on their religion. Or scratch that, let’s say any business and not just a gay-owned one.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

You would be wrong.

If I went to an atheist photographer and asked him or her to photograph a religious ceremony I was having, I take that chance of objection. If they declined based on not supporting making images of something they truly thought was wrong, I would certainly not sue them for that. If they choose to not promore an activity or behavior, what right do I have to try to force them? On the other hand. Being a contract pilot for the military, I would train anyone sent to me as a professional. If that person were gay it would not matter. They would be trained as well as anyone assigned me in all of my 34 years doing that. If I were of any other mind, it would be discrimination. By the same token, I’m also an artist. When I retire, that is what I’ll do as my last career. If a same sex couple asked me to create an image or sculpture of them, I would have to decline.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

This is what I’ve talked about before. You’re one of the few people you can count on to restore some faith that people have genuine similar concerns from the gay community in areas where concerns are deep. I know you don’t particularly care to address comments I’ve made. I appreciate you answering.

You and I are in the same boat mostly concerning age. I wish it were 17 or 18 in all of our states. I joined the Army when I was 17 and I was probably too young. Looking back, I really don’t think 17 is any age one should be in the military. Even being old enough mentally to do that, I’m sure I wasn’t ready for a livelong relationship.

As far as relationships, very few teens are living outside their parents homes until they’re 17-18 at least. The idea that libfreeordie was cavorting with a middle aged man as a teenager is just abhorant to me. I cannot even imagine the parents that allowed that to happen. I’m sure there would be a lot of debate about my opinion as to what age is appropriate and it would be hard to argue that there have not been successful long relationships with couples that have joined at some of the ages states allow now. But my God, people on this site are talking about kids being fair game after turning the puberty corner. Others are talking about older adults with younger teens when they’re still of an age where they’d be in their parents home. And it seem revolting to few people. I know there are few comments made.

I do not believe everyone who is gay advocates this. But when you ask anyone about it, it seems like the question is near impossible to answer save for a few such as yourself. In the manner Zekecorlain has talked about it, he conceded in so many words that there is some acceptance of that aim.

You don’t know what you don’t know. To simply ask, appears to put one on the enemy of the movement category.