juansavage1

I read most of the Carson one. I was pretty astonished at their "lie" standard and how much they generalized about religious people.

After being chastened here, I wanted to see how to argue properly, without generalizations and the other things I'm accused of. Read the article on Carson. Then, read the comments. Then, read what they wrote about Hillary's lies (I didn't find an article, but I'm sure it's there).

Was looking at the front page today. Man, what a collection of articles.

It's not a caricature. It's completely accurate. I'm not, of course, talking about every individual leftist. But, it's possible to say broad things like, "Evangelical Christians who attend church tend to think Homosexuality is a sin and base that belief on the Bible" without having to mention every individual Christian. HOWEVER, I'm not talking about your individual belief. I'm talking about the beliefs and assumptions of the movement, which are pretty uniform.

Then, don't get mad when I connect the dots. Own it.

Yes. That's a recent belief in the Western world. Arguing whether it's true or not would be a painful, useless discussion because we have different assumptions about the world.

Uh...

People disagree on what kind of parent the state should prefer. This is inevitable in a fractured society such as ours. In 20 years, we might think it's funny how three male strippers wearing diapers who were willing to provide food and shelter were denied foster children.

I see what happened. Critical theory isn't the same as critical thinking. From Wiki:

Can you explain this statement? I don't know what you mean.

Really? Then we should have foster parents by lottery.

I won't get into the average sexual habits of different groups, except to say that they're not uniform. My point is that society has a right to determine what makes a fit parent. Any other discussion is useless. And, religious freedom means that we can bring our beliefs into politics, which is a phony argument anyways since everybody brings their beliefs into politics.

I'm reading this book. It's all about this stuff: The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PSSEIXE/ref=cm_sw_r_other_awd_g1pswb5Y7AA06

That's when the new left movement of the sixties became the professors.

As this winds down, I'll summarize the arguments here: I think these campus acts aren't reactions to real problems. Rather, they're the result of being taught a philosophy that encourages grievance and complaining over illusory issues of "power," "privilege," and other left wing obsessions. I base this mostly on the fact that such people are the only ones protesting. The guys who ridiculed my argument may think that the protests are dumb, and that some of the kids are spoiled, but have no further thoughts. Oh, and we shouldn't bring up the source of their philosophy because it gets repetitive and boring.

The idea that a homosexual caretaker or caretakers are as good for children as an opposite-sex couple is a belief based on a certain view of humanity. I'm just saying that any decision the state makes on these cases doesn't just have to do with food and shelter. What if it's two swinging strippers who love and care for the children? There are many examples I could use.

Yes, I did. So what? Do you agree that a parent's philosophy should be considered? Are there some beliefs that disqualify one from being given the responsibility to raise children (this is the purpose of the Nazi example and the one above)? If you do think so, then we're just arguing if homosexuality should be a consideration or not. I think a male and female joined in marriage is the best example and the best for the kids partly because it most closely approximates the situation in which children are conceived in the first place.

I'm going to reason this out. Let me know where I fail: Students are protesting. Their complaints are reasonable or unreasonable. I think most people would say they're unreasonable. So, why are the students making unreasonable demands? We can say they're spoiled or something else independent of ideology. However, are all ideologies complaining equally? It's not race, as many races are joining in the protests, like the professor of journalism. So, what is it that binds these students together? Let's look at their rhetoric and demands. Combine this with what we know about what's taught in colleges. From this process, I conclude that there's a commonly taught philosophy that emphasizes conflict and grievance. What are the roots of that philosophy?

Talking about this without talking about their philosophy is like talking about the terror attacks without talking about Islam, the holocaust without talking about antisemitism, or anti abortion activists without Christianity. Just like all of your no generalization rules, it's all hypocrisy. As soon as you feel like it you'll talk about the other side's philosophy.

Why?

So, then you disagree with these judges: There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday. Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

There are truly offensive things, but the kind of offense these people take has to be taught.

A strawman argument is when somebody argues against an argument that their opponent didn't make. An example would be your claim that I said that Marxists are trying to take over the country. It so happens that I do think that they're trying to propagate their ideas, a "take over," if you wish. I'm trying to propagate my ideas. Nothing surprising or sinister about wanting your ideas to prevail. So, far, Marxists have been most successful in the social sciences, although much of the humanities have succumbed.