Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

How is my question loaded?

(Hint: It's not.)

Okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I don't know what to say either, Runtu. I have provided documentation that to me suffices for all of what I said in my blog (i.e. all that is pertinent to this thread), and which is even sufficient to me for all I informally said here (I am not writing a graduate-level research paper by the way), and acknowledged that it, in part, may not be satisfactory to some here, and that I would research further, but to be patient. I don't see how that in any reasonable sense can be interpreted as "unwilling or unable."

But, that seems to be how you uncharitably see it. And even though the uncharitableness prompts me to throw my hands in the air and wash them of the whole business, figuring that there is not the least give from your end, and that it has all been a huge waste of time, I may still expend the effort of researching the sticking point, and post it here. We'll see.

For now, I will just be at piece with and content being accused of misusing statistics and for allegedly not be very good at statistical analysis. I have been accused a number of times of far worse on this thread, and life is too short to let certain cyber-perception get in the way of a happy and growing life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't said anything uncharitable, Wade, and I have not "accused" you of anything. I've said more than once that your misuse of the data may well stem from not understanding the data you have. If I have offended you or have insulted you in any way, I am sorry. I've tried very hard not to do that. Instead I've spent a lot of time discussing your citations and why they clearly don't support your claims, but you believe you have refuted my criticisms. I would gladly "give" from my end if you gave me a reason to do so.

I have no issue with principled and reasoned opposition to same-sex marriage. What I object to is basing claims on statistics that do not support those claims. I have tried to keep my remarks limited to the serious problems I see with the data and claims in your blog and in this thread. I believe I have shown clearly that the claims are not supported, and I've explained why.

If you wish to restate your claims simply and concisely and then show how your data supports those claims, I'm happy to continue. But if you don't wish to do so, I won't spend any more time on this.

[_gramps]

Darth J wrote:

The question's relevance to the topic of this thread, though, is that you are attempting to make that very argument. The reason you are discussing at length what you assert to be negative unintended consequences of same-sex marriage is that you're attempting to persuade people that same-sex couples should not have a legal right to marry. Since you are fooling a total of no one that your blog has any other purpose, I think it would save a lot of time if you stop trying to be coy about what is blatantly obvious.

This really is the crux of it, Wade. I don't think you are fooling anyone, except yourself, perhaps? Have you thought about that? I bet a lot of people would be willing to help you out, if you could step back and just be honest.

Runtu, has gone beyond the call of duty to help you out, but you keep sidestepping it all.

Of course, this is nothing new with you. It really is your MO. Kind of sad.

Why not call up Terryl Givens and chat about dancing? Join a dancing group, find a partner (I personally don't care of which sex) and chill out on the stuff that is way over your head. I bet you would be happier, unless you think that your blog is kind of sexy. If so, continue on....

[_wenglund]

I'm not claiming to look out for you, Wade.

Okay. My mistake.

I am explicitly saying that you're full of s***. Having read the protracted Gish gallop that is your blog, there is no discernible reason to believe that you even know what your links are intended to support. But look, Wade, as far as my supposed failure to grasp what you're saying---a failure that is apparently shared by every single person with whom you interact---blame God for your Asperger's, not me.

I will give your opinion and suggestion due consideration.

Do you want to concede the point right now that this study does not support an argument against a right to same-sex marriage?

I will concede that I haven't here, nor did I on my blog, make such an argument, nor did I use the study to make that argument. (Evidently, this simple point seems terminally to allude you--speaking of "Asperger's")

Rationally, before I can conceding whether the study may or may not provide support, I would need to know how the study is allegedly being used by whomever, to make the argument.

This assumes that I may be interested in tangentially discussing here what other people are arguing in that regard. I am not.

Or should I go ahead and demonstrate it?

You have my permission to do as you please. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

Remember the Turing test? It is about a computer interacting with a human being, programmed with the aim of the human being not being able to recognize that he or she is not dialoging with another human. There is even a prize for doing well in the test.

http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html

In this thread we have a terrible spectacle that is the inverse of the Turing test: a living, breathing human being is winning some kind of self-imposed competition to convince his human readers that he is a computer with a quite obviously limited capacity to grasp what they are saying, but an unlimited capacity for producing uncomprehending walls of text in response to their attempts to dialog with him.

What is more, he shows not the slightest signs of ever having had a significant relationship in his life that might lead him to think a little before telling us what kind of recognition should or should not be given to the relationships of others. To him, it is all just words on the page.

It is not a pretty sight.

[_wenglund]

I haven't said anything uncharitable, Wade, and I have not "accused" you of anything. I've said more than once that your misuse of the data may well stem from not understanding the data you have. If I have offended you or have insulted you in any way, I am sorry. I've tried very hard not to do that. Instead I've spent a lot of time discussing your citations and why they clearly don't support your claims, but you believe you have refuted my criticisms. I would gladly "give" from my end if you gave me a reason to do so.

I have no issue with principled and reasoned opposition to same-sex marriage. What I object to is basing claims on statistics that do not support those claims. I have tried to keep my remarks limited to the serious problems I see with the data and claims in your blog and in this thread. I believe I have shown clearly that the claims are not supported, and I've explained why.

If you wish to restate your claims simply and concisely and then show how your data supports those claims, I'm happy to continue. But if you don't wish to do so, I won't spend any more time on this.

Like you, in good faith, I have spent considerable time and effort, and have done my best to clarify and reason and carefully consider and respond to your criticisms. Yet, after all this, you don't think you have been uncharitable or that you have accused me of anything, and unlike with me, you don't think you have any reason to give.

So, if one assumes that past performance may be indicative of future performance, it is likely that were I to expend even more time and effort clarifying and reasoning and carefully considering and responding to your criticism, the result would be no different. You will probably still believe you haven't been uncharitable or accusatory to me and have no reason to give, and that my claims are unsupported.

And, I am okay with that as things now stand.

So, I see little point in expending the additional resources in producing no different outcome.

I do appreciate, though, your abundant contributions, and I have grown through the process.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Remember the Turing test? It is about a computer interacting with a human being, programmed with the aim of the human being not being able to recognize that he or she is not dialoging with another human. There is even a prize for doing well in the test.

http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html

In this thread we have a terrible spectacle that is the inverse of the Turing test: a living, breathing human being is winning some kind of self-imposed competition to convince his human readers that he is a computer with a quite obviously limited capacity to grasp what they are saying, but an unlimited capacity for producing uncomprehending walls of text in response to their attempts to dialog with him.

What is more, he shows not the slightest signs of ever having had a significant relationship in his life that might lead him to think a little before telling us what kind of recognition should or should not be given to the relationships of others. To him, it is all just words on the page.

It is not a pretty sight.

I admire your cleverness. It helps me to not take myself or other too seriously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_gramps]

Wade is a lot like DCP. Wade will consider that a compliment.

To each his own.

Wade, on to your dancing class with Terryl. Hurry up. Time's slipping away!

[_Darth J]

I am explicitly saying that you're full of s***. Having read the protracted Gish gallop that is your blog, there is no discernible reason to believe that you even know what your links are intended to support. But look, Wade, as far as my supposed failure to grasp what you're saying---a failure that is apparently shared by every single person with whom you interact---blame God for your Asperger's, not me.

I will give your opinion and suggestion due consideration.

No, you will not. Nobody who has interacted with you online would have any reason to believe you have any particular sense of self-awareness. But it's not just that. It's that your cherished beliefs are impervious to fact, even when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Make that especially when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Do you want to concede the point right now that this study does not support an argument against a right to same-sex marriage?

I will concede that I haven't here, nor did I on my blog, make such an argument, nor did I use the study to make that argument. (Evidently, this simple point seems terminally to allude you--speaking of "Asperger's")

Allude vs. Elude

How curious that without fail, every single time anyone deconstructs your BS, that person didn't understand what you were saying. In fact, this entire thread is one big exercise in you claiming after-the-fact that you have extreme difficulty in interacting with everyone---what with nobody ever being able to understand what your point is. So if you don't want people to wonder if you have an autism spectrum disorder, perhaps you should stop imputing it to yourself.

Rationally, before I can conceding whether the study may or may not provide support, I would need to know how the study is allegedly being used by whomever, to make the argument.

This assumes that I may be interested in tangentially discussing here what other people are arguing in that regard. I am not.

In other words, you don't know what your own point is.

Or should I go ahead and demonstrate it?

You have my permission to do as you please. LOL

I see you have learned from your favorite church, Wade. Having been burned so consistently whenever a definitive position is taken, both your church and you are now preemptively unwilling to take a stand on anything beyond insisting that whatever it is you think, it is right.

What was the point of you citing this study, Wade? As you have indicated in this thread, you are the primary authority on what you think, so say explicitly what you were thinking when you referred to this study in a thread about the alleged negative unintended consequences of same-sex marriage.

[_Bond James Bond]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

This is what I've been wondering while reading.