Are people born gay or do they choose to be gay?

christ_undivided said:
Then why does the word "all" even exist? If what you say is true, then "all" wouldn't be necessary. Only "some".....

Your understanding of grammar is pathetic. Which is something I thought Englishmen enjoyed.

Try again.,...... It is okay to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Backpedalling - "I hate dogs" is understood to mean "I hate ALL dogs".

The fact that two people have pulled you up on this, should tell you something.
As the other person has said, you are now in a corner, and doubling down.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Backpedalling - "I hate dogs" is understood to mean "I hate ALL dogs".

The fact that two people have pulled you up on this, should tell you something.
As the other person has said, you are now in a corner, and doubling down.
Click to expand...

Wow. Two people. Two very seriously mistaken people. I'm not afraid. Try again. I reject the "duo".
 
Temujin said:
I know that is what you care saying. And I am pointing out that the comparison is simplistic, doesn't consider the relevant issues and is not in tune with the real world.
Click to expand...

You have not remotely explained (never mind demonstrated) how a child not mature enough to consent to sex, nor mature enough to get a simple medical procedure IS mature enough to get an abortion or undergo gender transition on her own.
 
Temujin said:
For those occasions when it is not implied. Any other weasel word excuses?
Click to expand...

Just so your Englishmen can understand English.... "I hate humans" is a generalized statement. A precise statement would be the use of all or some. For example....

I hate some humans. I hate all humans.

Get it?

Basically the difference between a generalized statement vs a specific statement.
 
Temujin said:
In some circumstances, yes. Using the criteria of the best interests of the child.
Click to expand...

In general, who is the best determinant of the “best interests” of the child? A judge? A school counselor? A doctor? The parents? The child herself?

Who determines what even constitutes the “best interests” of the child? Can you imagine as a parent having some bureaucrat determine for you what’s in the “best interest” of your child, and pulling them away to make important decisions for them without your involvement?

Again, I am asking you: do you have kids of your own? Every passing post of yours screams at the top of its lungs that you are not a parent. Now you may be, but man oh man, it sure doesn’t look like it.
 
christ_undivided said:
Just so your Englishmen can understand English.... "I hate humans" is a generalized statement. A precise statement would be the use of all or some. For example....

I hate some humans. I hate all humans.

Get it?

Basically the difference between a generalized statement vs a specific statement.
Click to expand...
Keep digging.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Keep digging.
Click to expand...

Just provide reference that "specifically" states I am wrong. Generalized statements are not specific statements. It is really very simple.

Let me tell you what will help you. Spend you life searching the Scriptures and studying the construct of languages.... or get into an argument with a Calvinist over "all". It might help you understand how human beings have always communicated.

Playing "gotcha" with a generalized statement is very childish.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
You have not remotely explained (never mind demonstrated) how a child not mature enough to consent to sex, nor mature enough to get a simple medical procedure IS mature enough to get an abortion or undergo gender transition on her own.
Click to expand...
I'm not remotely attempting to do so. I have demonstrated however, that it is sometimes in that child's interest to have an abortion, despite their parents wishes, and that therefore regulations and legislation needs to reflect this. The harping on about maturity is a red herring. The issue is who are the best people to act in the best interests of the child. Because this is not always the parents, the opportunity for it not to be the parents has to be there.
 
christ_undivided said:
Just so your Englishmen can understand English.... "I hate humans" is a generalized statement. A precise statement would be the use of all or some. For example....

I hate some humans. I hate all humans.

Get it?

Basically the difference between a generalized statement vs a specific statement.
Click to expand...
As you used it, the clear implication is all humans. Even if this was just an ambiguity, a simple acknowledgment on your part would have been sufficient. Instead you continue to double down , going from stupidity to farce. Accept it and move on. You are making yourself look ridiculous.
 
Temujin said:
As you used it, the clear implication is all humans. Even if this was just an ambiguity, a simple acknowledgment on your part would have been sufficient. Instead you continue to double down , going from stupidity to farce. Accept it and move on. You are making yourself look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Where is your reference? I explained myself. You have yet to deal with the fact it was a generalized statement. Why are you "doubling down" on your mistake?

I'm trying to help you. There is no reason to be so childish over a generalized statement. Usually, generalized statements are made that allow the conversation to progress into more specific statements. Go back.... and read our conversation. That is EXACTLY what happened.....

However, you "BOTH/DUO" are struggling with your arguments and you want to be "petty" over something you don't understand. You're wrong. Simple mistake. Admit it and move on.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
In general, who is the best determinant of the “best interests” of the child? A judge? A school counselor? A doctor? The parents? The child herself?

Who determines what even constitutes the “best interests” of the child? Can you imagine as a parent having some bureaucrat determine for you what’s in the “best interest” of your child, and pulling them away to make important decisions for them without your involvement?

Again, I am asking you: do you have kids of your own? Every passing post of yours screams at the top of its lungs that you are not a parent. Now you may be, but man oh man, it sure doesn’t look like it.
Click to expand...
There is no "in general". Circumstances differ.

Social workers remove children from parental care every week that passed. Every year that passed reveals dead children who were not so removed.

I am a parent and a grandparent, an angle and a great uncle. I have also participated in safeguarding case conferences where agencies discussed the care of children, supervision of parents and oversight of parental decisions. Every post you make screams your rosy-eyed vision of parenthood, which in a small minority of cases would lead to a child being permenantly damaged or losing its life. Your "in general" must take into account the existence of this small minority of cases, otherwise it is worthless.
 
christ_undivided said:
Where is your reference? I explained myself. You have yet to deal with the fact it was a generalized statement. Why are you "doubling down" on your mistake?

I'm trying to help you. There is no reason to be so childish over a generalized statement. Usually, generalized statements are made that allow the conversation to progress into more specific statements. Go back.... and read our conversation. That is EXACTLY what happened.....

However, you "BOTH/DUO" are struggling with your arguments and you want to be "petty" over something you don't understand. You're wrong. Simple mistake. Admit it and move on.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your prickly defensiveness is speaking volumes here. When in a hole, stop digging.
 
christ_undivided said:
Reference? I bet you've been looking for one haven't you??? Didn't find one did you?.....
Click to expand...
No, I haven't bothered. I have been replying to a more interesting poster. You keep waving your twisted knickers in the air. We don't need a reference to see just how silly that looks.
 
Temujin said:
There is no "in general". Circumstances differ.

Social workers remove children from parental care every week that passed. Every year that passed reveals dead children who were not so removed.

I am a parent and a grandparent, an angle and a great uncle. I have also participated in safeguarding case conferences where agencies discussed the care of children, supervision of parents and oversight of parental decisions. Every post you make screams your rosy-eyed vision of parenthood, which in a small minority of cases would lead to a child being permenantly damaged or losing its life. Your "in general" must take into account the existence of this small minority of cases, otherwise it is worthless.
Click to expand...

Well where we agree is that there certainly are some cases (extreme cases) where a parent is totally unfit and the state needs to step in. But those cases don’t (or shouldn’t) include things like, “I want to have sex with my boyfriend but my parents won’t let me”. Or “I want to get an abortion but I don’t want my parents even knowing about it”. Or “I want to undergo gender transition as a 12 year old and I don’t want my parents to have any say in it.

Those kinds of decisions absolutely should involve the parents. And if, I suppose, a COMPELLING case can be made that the parents’ decisions are truly significantly harmful to the child, then the state can step in. But a pre-teen wanting to transition against the wishes of the parent is NOT one of those cases.
 
Temujin said:
No, I haven't bothered. I have been replying to a more interesting poster. You keep waving your twisted knickers in the air. We don't need a reference to see just how silly that looks.
Click to expand...

You're the one that spent several posts arguing with me over it... Now you want to run away. That is understandable.......

BTW....That last sentence was a generalization.
 
christ_undivided said:
Where is your reference? I explained myself. You have yet to deal with the fact it was a generalized statement. Why are you "doubling down" on your mistake?

I'm trying to help you. There is no reason to be so childish over a generalized statement. Usually, generalized statements are made that allow the conversation to progress into more specific statements. Go back.... and read our conversation. That is EXACTLY what happened.....

However, you "BOTH/DUO" are struggling with your arguments and you want to be "petty" over something you don't understand. You're wrong. Simple mistake. Admit it and move on.
Click to expand...
I’m curious. Which post is this statement you are arguing about?

I loathe internet trolls that insist someone meant something they clearly didn’t. Sure, we all write awkward sentences, but once someone rephrases and makes their point clear, that should be good enough.

Still, I have a hard time believing you are the one being sincere here. Seems way out of character for Temujin to troll

That’s why I’m curious.
 
Backup said:
I’m curious. Which post is this statement you are arguing about?

I loathe internet trolls that insist someone meant something they clearly didn’t. Sure, we all write awkward sentences, but once someone rephrases and makes their point clear, that should be good enough.

Still, I have a hard time believing you are the one being sincere here. Seems way out of character for Temujin to troll

That’s why I’m curious.
Click to expand...
They asked me the following
christ_undivided said:
So you abhor human beings?
Click to expand...
I, and another poster, took this to refer to all human beings, in general.

Were we wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top