Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

You don't know why men are different than women?

duh, yeah. what does that have to do with this topic?

Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home.

Somehow we survive that indignity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The indignity of it all!

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

Gay marriage: the union of two people of the same sex
sibling marriage: the union of two people of the same sex

exactly what is the difference in your small mind?

 

[Skylar]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

 

[Redfish]

duh, yeah. what does that have to do with this topic?

Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home.

Somehow we survive that indignity.

do you go in one at a time or all together?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

Gay marriage: the union of two people of the same sex
sibling marriage: the union of two people of the same sex

exactly what is the difference in your small mind?

Why would you do such a thing, you pervert?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.

 

[Redfish]

Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.

Silly.

However, to avoid that, remember those Civil Unions you fuckwits fought so hard?

Get the legislature to change the law, and sisters could form a Civil Union for tax purposes.

Why do that, they can just get married. Unless there is a federal law that reads as follows: gay marriages may only involve two unrelated adults, there wil be marriages of siblings, parents/children, and multiple person marriages.

BTW, the ACLU is already preparing a polygamy marriage case to be brought to the SC.

Our society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating.

why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

 

[Redfish]

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

Gay marriage: the union of two people of the same sex
sibling marriage: the union of two people of the same sex

exactly what is the difference in your small mind?

Why would you do such a thing, you pervert?

duh, you were advocating unisex restrooms, I guess you are the pervert.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't give two shits if 20 people marry each other, as long as they are all consenting adults. It won't change how I live, and it's none of my business.

And you're basing that upon what? SPECIFICALLY?

It's already been established that the cult which claims such has demanded their RIGHT to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

What evidence do you have that you will not at some point find yourself in a contest with one of these individuals advancing their perverse understanding which set YOU as 'inconvenient', thus worthy of destruction?

Or are you telling the board, that you recognize in the cult, the right to destroy YOU, when should you become inconvenient?

Please be specific in your response.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young. Would then predation on the sick, elderly or children by 'natural law'? Of course not. You don't like the idea so you reject it. As you do any aspect of nature you don't like. Any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already belief is dismissed.

Demonstrating elegantly that its not nature that is your basis of 'the laws of nature'. What you already believe is your basis. And that's just plain old confirmation bias. Where you ignore what you don't believe and only acknowledge what you agree with. . And then conclude that since you ignored everything that contradicts you, nothing contradicts you.

If only reality worked that way. Your process is an illogical, self contradictory mess. Where you keep arguing your subjective personal opinion is objective truth. And it isn't.

Subjective is not objective. Nor does cherry picking 'observations of nature' translate into 'the laws of nature'. Its merely cherry picking based on what you already believe. And your belief establishes no laws. Nor defines anything but your relativistic personal opinion.

Destroying your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy even hypothetically.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, let the Record reflect that the would-be 'contributor', Skylar... has finally attempted to sustain her feelings from the post cited below, for your convenience:

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

The Law; which those who observed it first, entitled it: Argumentum ad Verecundiam; which is to say the argument from respect... with another variation being Ipse Dixit; which is to say: 'He, himself said it...' speaks to the fatally flawed logical construct which appeals to the reasoning of another... and does so absent sustaining argument, which demonstrates the truth of the reasoning or evidence set forth by the preceding authority.

In this instance, I have advanced the intrinsic authority of nature itself. Stating in specific terms the basis of nature's ACTIONS... wherein Nature has DESIGNED HUMANITY WITH TWO DISTINCT BUT COMPLIMENTING GENDERS, EACH RESPECTIVELY DESIGNED TO JOIN WITH THE OTHER... WHEREIN THAT UNION OF TWO DISTINCT BODIES ESTABLISHES ONE SUSTAINABLE PHYSICAL BODY, FROM TWO.

FURTHER POINTING THAT MARRIAGE IS THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT UNION, WHEREIN TWO BODIES ARE JOINED AS ONE IN LEGAL TERMS: THE MALE AND FEMALE JOIN TO FORM ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

This provides the reference of unimpeachable facts, as the basis for the fact that nature has, in so doing DEFINED MARRIAGE.

By that construct I have not appealed to any authority, I have DEMONSTRATED THE FACTS... REGARDING THE AUTHORITY, demonstrating that such IS IN FACT: THE AUTHORITY.

Now with that said, we can now see that the would-be "contributor" has no means to sustain her 'reasoning', and I will now allow it to demonstrate such, to wit:

Skylar, where specifically do you find my argument, fallacious? Meaning that I am challenging you to state in SPECIFIC TERMS, the elements of my argument which fallaciously appeal to authority.

Enjoy the silence reader. Providing you such, is always: my esteemed pleasure.

More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young.

Reader, note that as a means to deflect from the laws of nature governing HUMAN BEHAVIOR... the Relativist has run to note the laws of nature governing the lower species, specifically with regard to culling the sick and otherwise disadvantaged from the herd and sustaining themselves, through the sustenance designed for them... by nature.

Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws. Even as it unwittingly cites such... in its own argument.

Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed SPECIFICALLY ON THAT GROUND.

And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.

Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, let the Record reflect that the would-be 'contributor', Skylar... has yet to find the means to sustain her feelings from the post cited below, for your convenience:

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

The Law; which those who observed it first, entitled it: Argumentum ad Verecundiam; which is to say the argument from respect... with another variation being Ipse Dixit; which is to say: 'He, himself said it...' speaks to the fatally flawed logical construct which appeals to the reasoning of another... and does so absent sustaining argument, which demonstrates the truth of the reasoning or evidence set forth by the preceding authority.

In this instance, I have advanced the intrinsic authority of nature itself. Stating in specific terms the basis of nature's ACTIONS... wherein Nature has DESIGNED HUMANITY WITH TWO DISTINCT BUT COMPLIMENTING GENDERS, EACH RESPECTIVELY DESIGNED TO JOIN WITH THE OTHER... WHEREIN THAT UNION OF TWO DISTINCT BODIES ESTABLISHES ONE SUSTAINABLE PHYSICAL BODY, FROM TWO.

FURTHER POINTING THAT MARRIAGE IS THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT UNION, WHEREIN TWO BODIES ARE JOINED AS ONE IN LEGAL TERMS: THE MALE AND FEMALE JOIN TO FORM ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

This provides the reference of unimpeachable facts, as the basis for the fact that nature has, in so doing DEFINED MARRIAGE.

By that construct I have not appealed to any authority, I have DEMONSTRATED THE FACTS... REGARDING THE AUTHORITY, demonstrating that such IS IN FACT: THE AUTHORITY.

Now with that said, we can now see that the would-be "contributor" has no means to sustain her 'reasoning', and I will now allow it to demonstrate such, to wit:

Skylar, where specifically do you find my argument, fallacious? Meaning that I am challenging you to state in SPECIFIC TERMS, the elements of my argument which fallaciously appeal to authority.

Enjoy the silence reader. Providing you such, is always: my esteemed pleasure.

You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.

You're nothing if not predictable. And for your convenience, here's better logic and better reasoning that decimates both your confirmation bias, your cherry picking, and your appeal to authority fallacies:

"More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young. Would then predation on the sick, elderly or children by 'natural law'? Of course not. You don't like the idea so you reject it. As you do any aspect of nature you don't like. Any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already belief is dismissed.

Demonstrating elegantly that its not nature that is your basis of 'the laws of nature'. What you already believe is your basis. And that's just plain old confirmation bias. Where you ignore what you don't believe and only acknowledge what you agree with. . And then conclude that since you ignored everything that contradicts you, nothing contradicts you.

If only reality worked that way. Your process is an illogical, self contradictory mess. Where you keep arguing your subjective personal opinion is objective truth. And it isn't.

Subjective is not objective. Nor does cherry picking 'observations of nature' translate into 'the laws of nature'. Its merely cherry picking based on what you already believe. And your belief establishes no laws. Nor defines anything but your relativistic personal opinion.

Destroying your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy even hypothetically."

Ignore as you will. But the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.

Silo will offer us pseudo-legal gibberish or hallucinations he claims are from studies. But at least he's giving lip service to the law, lip service to studies.

Keyes just cites himself. He claims to speak for nature, god, the English language, the dictionary, 'objective truth', or any other appeal to authority fallacy he can imagine. And each time its just his own subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective. This simple axiom obliterates virtually every fallacy Keyes offers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.

Silo will offer us pseudo-legal gibberish or hallucinations he claims are from studies. But at least he's giving lip service to the law, lip service to studies.

Keyes just cites himself. He claims to speak for nature, god, the English language, the dictionary, 'objective truth', or any other appeal to authority fallacy he can imagine. And each time its just his own subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective. This simple axiom obliterates virtually every fallacy Keyes offers.

Fallacy of keys' fabula

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.

Silo will offer us pseudo-legal gibberish or hallucinations he claims are from studies. But at least he's giving lip service to the law, lip service to studies.

Keyes just cites himself. He claims to speak for nature, god, the English language, the dictionary, 'objective truth', or any other appeal to authority fallacy he can imagine. And each time its just his own subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective. This simple axiom obliterates virtually every fallacy Keyes offers.

Fallacy of keys' fabula

Prima Feces?

 

[Syriusly]

Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.

Silly.

However, to avoid that, remember those Civil Unions you fuckwits fought so hard?

Get the legislature to change the law, and sisters could form a Civil Union for tax purposes.

Why do that, they can just get married. Unless there is a federal law that reads as follows: gay marriages may only involve two unrelated adults, there wil be marriages of siblings, parents/children, and multiple person marriages.

BTW, the ACLU is already preparing a polygamy marriage case to be brought to the SC.

Our society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating.

why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home.

Somehow we survive that indignity.

do you go in one at a time or all together?

You seem oddly curious as to bathroom habits.

Do you have separate gender specific bathrooms at your house?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.[sic]

And as the planet must rotate, the Relativist must reject the argument, through the pretense that such simply does not exist... turning instead to pretense that the argument exists only in the individual bringing the argument, as such is meets their own shallow, which is to say their subjective needs, offering, quite by default, the lowly RE-Concession to the points it sought to contest, but which continue to stand, wholly unscathed.

I republish those point below, for the benefit of the reader:

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

The Law; which those who observed it first, entitled it: Argumentum ad Verecundiam; which is to say the argument from respect... with another variation being Ipse Dixit; which is to say: 'He, himself said it...' speaks to the fatally flawed logical construct which appeals to the reasoning of another... and does so absent sustaining argument, which demonstrates the truth of the reasoning or evidence set forth by the preceding authority.

In this instance, I have advanced the intrinsic authority of nature itself. Stating in specific terms the basis of nature's ACTIONS... wherein Nature has DESIGNED HUMANITY WITH TWO DISTINCT BUT COMPLIMENTING GENDERS, EACH RESPECTIVELY DESIGNED TO JOIN WITH THE OTHER... WHEREIN THAT UNION OF TWO DISTINCT BODIES ESTABLISHES ONE SUSTAINABLE PHYSICAL BODY, FROM TWO.

FURTHER POINTING THAT MARRIAGE IS THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT UNION, WHEREIN TWO BODIES ARE JOINED AS ONE IN LEGAL TERMS: THE MALE AND FEMALE JOIN TO FORM ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

This provides the reference of unimpeachable facts, as the basis for the fact that nature has, in so doing DEFINED MARRIAGE.

By that construct I have not appealed to any authority, I have DEMONSTRATED THE FACTS... REGARDING THE AUTHORITY, demonstrating that such IS IN FACT: THE AUTHORITY.

Now with that said, we can now see that the would-be "contributor" has no means to sustain her 'reasoning', and I will now allow it to demonstrate such, to wit:

Skylar, where specifically do you find my argument, fallacious? Meaning that I am challenging you to state in SPECIFIC TERMS, the elements of my argument which fallaciously appeal to authority.

Enjoy the silence reader. Providing you such, is always: my esteemed pleasure.

More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young.

Reader, note that as a means to deflect from the laws of nature governing HUMAN BEHAVIOR... the Relativist has run to note the laws of nature governing the lower species, specifically with regard to culling the sick and otherwise disadvantaged from the herd and sustaining themselves, through the sustenance designed for them... by nature.

Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws. Even as it unwittingly cites such... in its own argument.

Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed SPECIFICALLY ON THAT GROUND.

And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.

Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With himself as the Authority.

Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument.

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.

Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.

Silo will offer us pseudo-legal gibberish or hallucinations he claims are from studies. But at least he's giving lip service to the law, lip service to studies.

Keyes just cites himself. He claims to speak for nature, god, the English language, the dictionary, 'objective truth', or any other appeal to authority fallacy he can imagine. And each time its just his own subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective. This simple axiom obliterates virtually every fallacy Keyes offers.

Fallacy of keys' fabula

Prima Feces?

Oh, to the quick. Key's Fabula Pro Prima Feces.

The dodo must be a pastor/instructor at some bubble gum bible college.