Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Homosexual Adoption
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  08:12:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It is silly to have to prove common knowledge.
No, what's silly is you making claims without data or references, and then balking when you're asked to back them up, when you demand exactly that from other people.

I suspect you've got all sorts of "common knowledge" about gay parenting, Piltdown Man, global climate change, the 9/11 attacks, literacy and many other subjects, but when asked to support your ideas you complain at first because you don't feel like Googling up actual data. And when you do, you tend to come up with references that don't quite support the claims you've made. It's a pattern you've repeated here, several times.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  08:38:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Halfmooner said "And since the fundy-bigot notion that gay parenting is worse than heterosexual parenting is the extraordinary claim (with only prejudice to bolster it), the burden of proof is upon those who oppose gay parents to prove their case."

Is this in reference to my thoughts?




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  08:41:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It is silly to have to prove common knowledge.
No, what's silly is you making claims without data or references, and then balking when you're asked to back them up, when you demand exactly that from other people.

I suspect you've got all sorts of "common knowledge" about gay parenting, Piltdown Man, global climate change, the 9/11 attacks, literacy and many other subjects, but when asked to support your ideas you complain at first because you don't feel like Googling up actual data. And when you do, you tend to come up with references that don't quite support the claims you've made. It's a pattern you've repeated here, several times.



This from the man that rarely presents data spends most of his words discounting others data.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Chippewa
SFN Regular

USA
1496 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  08:54:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Chippewa's Homepage Send Chippewa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So far in this thread I sense a leaning toward two fallacies, so for the sake of awareness, they are:

1. The "prove me wrong" fallacy, in which the burden of proof is shifted away from the poster and toward those reacting to his claim, and,
2. The "Opposite assumed to be true" misnomer. People sometimes unconsciously assume that "if not A then B". However, if there are not enough studies to prove that homosexuals are just as good as parents as heterosexuals, that does not mean that homosexuals are not as good as parents as heterosexuals.

Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.

"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.)
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  10:09:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Good points Chippewa.

Can we at least agree that many studies have shown that many heterosexual parents are unfit so we should leave all of our children with the homosexual couples until they're determined to be unfit as well?

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  11:24:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Halfmooner said "And since the fundy-bigot notion that gay parenting is worse than heterosexual parenting is the extraordinary claim (with only prejudice to bolster it), the burden of proof is upon those who oppose gay parents to prove their case."

Is this in reference to my thoughts?




No, and I'm sorry if that point was not clear. By "fundy-bigot," I was referring to those who actively oppose gay parenting, the lot who make discussions like this necessary. I don't think that you are that far out on this subject, as you already conceded early on that it's better to have gay parents than none.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  11:38:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Does anyone have any idea what a social issue is doing in the Religion forum? I am moving it because I don't think this is, or should be, a religion issue.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  11:48:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It is silly to have to prove common knowledge.
No, what's silly is you making claims without data or references, and then balking when you're asked to back them up, when you demand exactly that from other people.

I suspect you've got all sorts of "common knowledge" about gay parenting, Piltdown Man, global climate change, the 9/11 attacks, literacy and many other subjects, but when asked to support your ideas you complain at first because you don't feel like Googling up actual data. And when you do, you tend to come up with references that don't quite support the claims you've made. It's a pattern you've repeated here, several times.



This from the man that rarely presents data spends most of his words discounting others data.


Rather than insult one of our kind hosts, Jerome, if you'd instead look back at some of Dave's accumulated posts here, you'd see that he is actually quite good at giving references and evidence, when it is he who is making a claim.

But evidence is not required in refuting the kind of sweeping generalizations of the "common knowledge" sort that you and others have often made in these fora. In cases like these, he, and others of us, need only demand references be cited, and be valid.

You're having a hard time understanding this method, aren't you, Jerome? It's a skeptic's standard critical reasoning approach, and it's inspired by and based upon the methods of science.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  12:00:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by @tomic

Does anyone have any idea what a social issue is doing in the Religion forum? I am moving it because I don't think this is, or should be, a religion issue.

@

I think that move was a good idea, as the religious connection, though the foundation of the position of the anti-gay-parent lobby, is largely irrelevant to the facts being discussed.

[Compulsively edited for spelling: "ant-" to "anti-".]

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/23/2007 21:49:08
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  12:02:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Chippewa

So far in this thread I sense a leaning toward two fallacies, so for the sake of awareness, they are:

1. The "prove me wrong" fallacy, in which the burden of proof is shifted away from the poster and toward those reacting to his claim, and,
2. The "Opposite assumed to be true" misnomer. People sometimes unconsciously assume that "if not A then B". However, if there are not enough studies to prove that homosexuals are just as good as parents as heterosexuals, that does not mean that homosexuals are not as good as parents as heterosexuals.

2 for 2, Chip.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  12:03:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by @tomic

Good points Chippewa.

Can we at least agree that many studies have shown that many heterosexual parents are unfit so we should leave all of our children with the homosexual couples until they're determined to be unfit as well?

@

I certainly agree.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  12:45:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Chippewa

So far in this thread I sense a leaning toward two fallacies, so for the sake of awareness, they are:

1. The "prove me wrong" fallacy, in which the burden of proof is shifted away from the poster and toward those reacting to his claim, and,
2. The "Opposite assumed to be true" misnomer. People sometimes unconsciously assume that "if not A then B". However, if there are not enough studies to prove that homosexuals are just as good as parents as heterosexuals, that does not mean that homosexuals are not as good as parents as heterosexuals.



I proved my claim despite it being common knowledge.

I have seen no one state that homosexuals are not good parents.

In fact, I think you suffer from a common disease here. Making up what others are thinking and basing arguments against the unknown.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  12:55:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In fact, I think you suffer from a common disease here. Making up what others are thinking and basing arguments against the unknown.

It's everyone but you Jerome, everyone but you.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  13:01:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by @tomic

In fact, I think you suffer from a common disease here. Making up what others are thinking and basing arguments against the unknown.

It's everyone but you Jerome, everyone but you.

@




Really, who made a statement that homosexuals were not good parents?

That untrue claim was made with no evidence, as such it should be retracted.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Chippewa
SFN Regular

USA
1496 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2007 :  13:35:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Chippewa's Homepage Send Chippewa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

[quote]Really, who made a statement that homosexuals were not good parents? That untrue claim was made with no evidence, as such it should be retracted.


No such claim was made by me. Again: People sometimes unconsciously assume that "if not A then B". i.e. Lack of studies to prove that homosexuals as parents are as good as heterosexuals, does not mean that homosexual parents are not as good as heterosexuals.

I can't help it if you are not capable of critical thinking.

Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.

"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.)
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000