What's worse: Pedophiles or Murderers?

However, making claims that are factual and not providing sources to back said fact leads to the argument being invalid by default.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I don't think there is many people with that quality on here. Just because you don't like or understand an answer doesn't mean it wasn't given. I did answer it, it's not my fault you either don't like it or can't recognize it. I used the article because I am not gay myself and thusly did not want to step on any toes.

Let's be honest here, if you can.... You posted the Wiki article on homosexuality long after you repeatedly claimed to me "I did"[answer], in reference to my "gay culture" question, that is a fact that can be easily verified in the thread.

So, why did you say "I did" in reference to answering my "what is gay culture" and other related questions when all you had to support your claim was the Wiki article that you posted long after the fact?

Originally posted by chithappens
However, making claims that are factual and not providing sources to back said fact leads to the argument being invalid by default.

That would be why I left the wiki article.

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's be honest here, if you can.... You posted the Wiki article on homosexuality long after you repeatedly claimed to me "I did"[answer], in reference to my "gay culture" question, that is a fact that can be easily verified in the thread.

So, why did you say "I did" in reference to answering my "what is gay culture" and other related questions when all you had to support your claim was the Wiki article that you posted long after the fact?

I made my points before that also, and your side has yet to provide ANY proof at all to support your claims.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That would be why I left the wiki article.

Yes, long after making the claims that you already did answer. (see above)

Besides, the Wiki article was irrelevant to your claims.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I made my points before that also, and your side has yet to provide ANY proof at all to support your claims.

You troll... The only points you made were the Wiki article (if that can be considered a point) and that was after the fact. I guess you can't be honest, oh well.

"my side" whatever that is, didn't make any claims about "gay culture", you did... Duh.

I'm trying to play the objective role here. I'm just saying that once proof is given, respect is given; your argument is at least given some ground and even if they don't agree with the logic, you won't be look @ as an ass.

Originally posted by Robtard
You troll... The only points you made were the Wiki article (if that can be considered a point) and that was after the fact Guess you can't be honest, oh well.

"my side" whatever that is, didn't make any claims about "gay culture", you did.. Duh.

You made claims it did not exist yet could not back them up with anything at all.

And why is this argument spanning 3 threads now?

lets be fair to trolls. trolls know that they are lying and do it to intentionally irritate others. this guy actually believes the shit he makes up, from what i gather

Okay this is not the subject of this thread,

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/449191_13-father-says-sons-traumatized-by-lesbian-library-book#post8811473

Try to stick to the relevent threads.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I made my points before that also, and your side has yet to provide ANY proof at all to support your claims.

Again, logic based arguments do not always need facts to work because often times people who are debating have certain understood jargon and knowledge on the subject, but once a factual claim is made outside of the understood sphere, it must be cited or a universal known fact (like water is h2o) otherwise it is frowned upon.

Originally posted by Starhawk
You made claims it did not exist yet could not back them up with anything at all.

And why is this argument spanning 3 threads now?

Congrats, you managed to troll me, I'm done though... your tactics are boring, typical and predictable. Dodge, dodge, spin, spin and then falsely accuse.... nothing new here folks, nothing to see.

Originally posted by chithappens
Again, logic based arguments do not always need facts to work because often times people who are debating have certain understood jargon and knowledge on the subject, but once a factual claim is made outside of the understood sphere, it must be cited or a universal known fact (like water is h2o) otherwise it is frowned upon.

So your side needs nothing to back it up because in your minds your way is just right, yet anyone who disagrees with you must.

I love your one sided way of looking at things.

Are we still arguing paedophiles Vs murderers?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Are we still arguing paedophiles Vs murderers?

-AC

No. no... Starhawk is trolling and I was foolish enough to play along.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Are we still arguing paedophiles Vs murderers?

-AC

no, were still waiting for the law student to post that email from his professor...which was 4 months ago, so he forgot...although it concerns a law in which he claims to be so empassioned about....

i would have serious reservations about a lawyer who cannot even remember the specifics of a law he claims to champion after forgetting it once, emailing his professor for the specifics, and then forgetting it again.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So your side needs nothing to back it up because in your minds your way is just right, yet anyone who disagrees with you must.

I love your one sided way of looking at things.

You miss my point again (this will be my last time trying to explain this)... If I say that gay people face more prejudice about their sexual orientation than heterosexual people, that is understood - a fact but understood so no citation is needed.

If I say that gay people are conservative, I need a factual citation to prove it rather than just saying "It is true because I am studying it so I know." That doesn't mean anything.

Devil King, Scheter, and Rob have disagreed with me on more than once occasion but it never got into name calling because it was mostly logical based observation and analysis without anyone claiming huge generalizations that they could not cite a source for.

There is a big difference sir.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, were still waiting for the law student to post that email from his professor...which was 4 months ago, so he forgot...although it concerns a law in which he claims to be so empassioned about....

i would have serious reservations about a lawyer who cannot even remember the specifics of a law he claims to champion after forgetting it once, emailing his professor for the specifics, and then forgetting it again.

And you have instant recall of everything you read 4 months ago word for word? I highly doubt that.

Chithappens keep it to the right thread this is not the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And you have instant recall of everything you read 4 months ago word for word? I highly doubt that.

Chithappens keep it to the right thread this is not the topic of this thread.

of study material for my major? absolutely. to a tee. if not i would be a hack and a fraud. anyone who instantly and carelessly forgets the fundamental core of what they study to be in life is, factually, a hack. most likely people of this nature dont bother to learn in the first place and simply cheat their way through school

Originally posted by Starhawk

Chithappens keep it to the right thread this is not the topic of this thread.

I was not trying to talk about this thread. I was making a point about how to tell when someone's "deduction" is bullshit.

That was not the topic of my post. Slow man