Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again, only for fence-riders like you. And I've refuted each and every one of your inellectually dishonest, relativist arguments over and over again for the past 3 years. They're no more correct now than they they were the first time.
Relativism has its place, but that place isn't making bullshit, dishonest analogies to support a bullshit, dishoenst argument.
Link.
111 Elementary Statistics (R1/R2) (both sem)
240 Introduction to Statistics (R1/R2) (both sem)
Whatever. Keep dreaming.
Again, only for fence-riders like you. And I've refuted each and every one of your inellectually dishonest, relativist arguments over and over again for the past 3 years. They're no more correct now than they they were the first time.
Relativism has its place, but that place isn't making bullshit, dishonest analogies to support a bullshit, dishoenst argument.
Nothing to dream about. I've never seen anyone not own you. All anyone has to do is point out the intellectual dishonesty to your arguments.
You said, Smoking until recently was widely accepted by the public in general; therefore, considered normal. Following your reasoning, in perhaps 100 years, if the general population considers gay marriage to be okay, it will be okay. Let's see you argue your way out of it.
Everyone is a fence sitter to one degree or another. Where do you stand on the spectrum of taking drugs?
Tobacco is unhealthy. Should people smoke cigarettes?
Marijuana is unhealthy. Should people be allowed to smoke marijuana?
Cocaine is unhealthy. Should people be allowed to smoke cocaine?
Weapons are dangerous but serve to protect people. To what degree should people own weapons?
Shotguns, Pistols, Semi-automatic guns, fully automatic guns, bazookas, Sherman tanks, grenades, land mines, atomic bombs, nuclear missiles: What age should the owner be? Where do you draw the line?
Let us see if you are not a fence sitter.
No one has done it yet. They only say that it is dishonest.
No reason to, as you were incorrect the first time.
There's nothing to argue my way out of. You're just seeing something that isn't there.
If society accepts homosexuality as "normal societal behavior," then it does. That does not negate the science to the argument.
Society accepts cigarrette smoking as normal, but it is in fact a learned societal habit that is medically self-destructive. Right?
Homosexuality is biologically abnormal.
From the beginning, I have said society can define normal, but is not the sole determining factor. I'm not seeing what's so hard about that.
That link does not support your statement. While I realize you consider yourself funny, one can only conclude that you pulled the percentage you posted out your ass.
I don't see the correlation between your arbitrary and irrelevant questions to you making relativist arguments. Nor do I see where having an opinion on any of those questions correlates to riding a fence.
How clever.
2σ = 95.44997361036%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Deviation#Rules_for_normally_distributed_data
Proof?
Incorrect. Rare is a subset of abnormal.
I can't make it any simpler for you. Practically everything is relative. Come on and answer the questions. You should see that everyone is a fence sitter.
Are you pro-abortion or pro-life?
Should abortion be outlawed in all cases, even when the mothers life would be at risk if she were not to have an abortion? If you would allow abortion under some such cases, but not in other cases, arent you a fence sitter when it comes to the abortion issue?
Coward
