Wikipedia functions as a mediocre level (at best) source for post-secondary institutions because it's a good jumping board for the
beginning of research. All Wikipedia does is summarize something for you into a more basic and digestible form, then leave
citations that allow you to pursue where the users editing it got its information from. Ergo why one of the most prolific and infamous tags on Wikipedia is [citation needed], it means the claim lacks any verifiable source. Since it was obvious that Prisk had done zero research on the topic with the "it's not natural" claim, I decided that putting her on a page with dozens and dozens of citations she can view herself would be a good start to research if she chose to pursue the topic in her spare time.
Also, troll edits result in an IP ban from editing, since you leave your IP fingerprint anytime you make an edit. Which is why most Wikipedia pages usually manage to avoid being vandalized.
That's good. I actually didn't know that. I remember once looking up an actor from Prison Break to see more information. One minute it was there, refresh page later it wasn't then I heard people could edit it.
@WarriorHeart Hey man, I fight the same kinds of people... Hmph. Let me put it this way: I fight
zealots. Not Christians, not Atheists, not Agnostics. Not gays, not heterosexuals, not asexuals. Not whites, not blacks, not hispanics...
Zealots. When you're so certain of your position that you start making broad and sweeping statements about what a group of people can or cannot do, whether it is or is not natural, whether it should or shouldn't be, based solely on their ethnicity, sexuality, or (ir)religious beliefs, I will happily challenge that zealot.
Now, again, as I said to Prisk: I don't think she's a zealot and I don't think she's a bad person by any stretch of the imagination. I'm aware that to at least a certain extent she's playing Devil's Advocate as she later revealed her bisexual stance--something I was already aware of about her. Yes, she and I often sit on opposite sides of the table, but we keep it civilized generally. At the very least if I notice my tone is slipping, I try to explain why and steer the topic away from anything nasty. I think the main reason she got dog piled with negative votes is more that people saw the "it's unnatural" comment and knee-jerk'd downvotes. It happens.
Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'll disrespect them. That's reserved for pedophiles and people who talk in theater...
Ad hominems don't help your argument Hellis. Take this word of advice from me, your friend: If you want to discuss something, keep it civil. If you're too passionate to keep it civil, back away from the topic and learn better self restraint methods.
You don't help your side by trashing others questioning your methods, regardless of whether they did it in a respectful or disrespectful way.
I hope you get this ferret something shiny to steal.
That depends on what a ferret, with a liking of shiny things, enjoys.
And this is where the argument falls apart Prisk, because it makes two sweeping generalizations with zero evidence.
#1: It assumes there is a creator of some shape or form, and that creator has some sort of intelligence in order to determine a clandestine purpose for its creations. Evolution is merely a series of processes that doesn't give a shit if its processes succeed or fail, as evolution is merely the method by which things grow and change in a physical manner.
#2: Assuming there
is a creator of some sort with a clandestine purpose, we assume to know what that purpose is despite having zero direct, verifiable contact with said creator. How do we know which version is the right one? Do we go with the Norse? The Greeks? Romans? Christians? Celts? Aztecs? An unknown, personal creator? Who's personal creator is right though? Which one is real and which one isn't? How can we determine their purpose? Before you argue "man + woman = baby", I can easily retort with "man has desire for man by nature, ergo by design: man + man =
natural." The argument at its fundamental base is
broken. That's why I challenge it, and it's why I don't tend to react to it well, because it's not a sensible, logical position: Not in theory
or practice.
Now I totally agree that the video failed to deliver, but for different reasons: I don't think it succeeds to deliver because it's using a comparative for people who are beyond being receptive to such comparisons, and who will just build up mental walls to avoid associating themselves with what's going on over the 16 minute run time. The message needs to be more insidious and they need to be broken down in other, less sensitive topics first. Change is hard and slow and this video is attempting to brute force whilst moving at the pace of a snail. It has good intentions, but it fails in execution.
You know, if you don't want people downvoting you into oblivion, you probably shouldn't be insinuating that they're all too immature to handle your position.
I already made the sperm bank argument a page back. I also made the argument that homosexuals can still totally do the penguin mating dance in a wild one night stand, they just won't enjoy it, but if it meant procreation and they refused both adoption and sperm bank, again, they can totally get themselves knocked up biologically no problem.
Yes! YES! ABSOLUTELY! This is the argument I made last page too!
PEOPLE SHOULD JUST LISTEN TO THE FERRET MORE OFTEN!
(No really though, you're doing great Kylulu. Ferret approved!)
