Quake3World

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:06 am**

I see. I must admit I would be able to wager a much greater passion for punishing the scum of society in prosecution.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:09 am**

I've considered that - already having the science background, going into law to prosecute cases where said expertise would come in handy.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:31 am**

S@M wrote:
says Jules who advocates for recognition of social constructs that would enable adults to have legal sex with minors :icon27:
Perhaps you mean for Law to accept opinions which are politically correct according to your interpretation?

It seems much of the subtleties of the points i made another thread were entirely lost on you.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:34 am**

Law wrote:
Whether I'm acting responsibly with awareness and rationality upon my opinion is entirely subjective.

No.

This isn't a subjective thing - here let me spell it out in more rigorous terms:

Premise1: An opinion is not a sufficient basis for the enactment of radical policy. Radical evidence is needed as well.

Premise2: You only have an opinion, as you have stated multiple times.

Conclusion: The enactment of the adoption policy at the current time is irresponsible.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:43 am**

I totally agree, I would never suggest that my opinion alone would be sufficient to create law upon. This is why I've stated numerous times that it is simply an opinion, provided solely for the purpose of creating some provocative discussion. But unless you can provide evidence of a study of the treatment children of gay male parents have been subjected to by their peers over a 10 year period then your beliefs as to responsibilty, awareness and rationality are nothing more than subjective opinion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:46 am**

Law wrote:I totally agree, I would never suggest that my opinion alone would be sufficient to create law upon.

Then we are in agreement I think.

But then, implicitly, it should also be your conviction that this adoption policy should not be enacted. Which is contrary to much of your phrasing in this thread.

Law wrote: This is why I've stated numerous times that it is simply an opinion, provided solely for the purpose of creating some provocative discussion. But unless you can provide evidence of a study of the treatment children of gay male parents have been subjected to by their peers over a 10 year period then your beliefs as to responsibilty, awareness and rationality are nothing more than subjective opinion.

The argument I outlined above (the two premises and conclusions) are objectively valid independent of any research. That was what I referred to as being epistemically responsible and rational.

i.e. being faithful to the point which we agree on is what I consider to be rational, in this context.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:48 am**

Objectively valid in your opinion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:48 am**

Law wrote:Objectively valid in your opinion.

and yours.

Also see my edit.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:50 am**

Subjective in my opinion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:50 am**

actually it is valid, in that the premises follow the conclusion.

I'd also argue that it's objectively sound, insofar as most people, including yourself, agree upon it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:53 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
S@M wrote:
says Jules who advocates for recognition of social constructs that would enable adults to have legal sex with minors :icon27:
Perhaps you mean for Law to accept opinions which are politically correct according to your interpretation?
It seems much of the subtleties of the points i made another thread were entirely lost on you.

ahh the subtleties of another thread,

gets me everytime I read a thread and forget to read all the other threads that may contain relevant subtleties

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:53 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:actually it is valid, in that the premises follow the conclusion.

I'd also argue that it's objectively sound, insofar as most people, including yourself, agree upon it.

I agree that my opinion alone is not valid enough to create law. As far as your opinion as to the responsibility, awareness and rationality of my opinion, that is what is subjective.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:55 am**

Julios do you not have an opinion on this post?

tnf wrote:And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:58 am**

Law wrote: I agree that my opinion alone is not valid enough to create law. As far as your opinion as to the responsibility, awareness and rationality of my opinion, that is what is subjective.

Please read this again, very carefully:

[xeno]Julios wrote:The argument I outlined above (the two premises and conclusions) are objectively valid independent of any research. That was what I referred to as being epistemically responsible and rational.

i.e. being faithful to the point which we agree on is what I consider to be rational, in this context.

I was NOT talking about the rationality of your OPINION, as I have made explicit multiple times. I was talking about the (ir)rationality of your EPISTEMIC USE of that opinion.

In other words, the "FACT THAT OPINION ISN'T ENOUGH TO BASE LAW UPON" is epistemically rational.

If you're gonna study law, you need to learn to read carefully ffs!

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:59 am**

Law wrote:Julios do you not have an opinion on this post?

tnf wrote:And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.

It's completely irrelevant to the point I've been trying to make.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:59 am**

If you were to be consistent and rational, you would be advocating that the policy NOT be enacted, since you realize that your opinion isn't enough for enactment.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:00 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
Law wrote: I agree that my opinion alone is not valid enough to create law. As far as your opinion as to the responsibility, awareness and rationality of my opinion, that is what is subjective.
Please read this again, very carefully:

[xeno]Julios wrote:The argument I outlined above (the two premises and conclusions) are objectively valid independent of any research. That was what I referred to as being epistemically responsible and rational.

i.e. being faithful to the point which we agree on is what I consider to be rational, in this context.
I was NOT talking about the rationality of your OPINION, as I have made explicit multiple times. I was talking about the (ir)rationality of your EPISTEMIC USE of that opinion.

In other words, the "FACT THAT OPINION ISN'T ENOUGH TO BASE LAW UPON" is epistemically rational.

If you're gonna study law, you need to learn to read carefully ffs!

The fact that opinion isn't enough to base law upon is not only epistemically rational, I'd say it's blatantly obvious.

Don't worry too much about my law studies, I'm doing quite well.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:01 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
Law wrote:Julios do you not have an opinion on this post?

tnf wrote:And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.
It's completely irrelevant to the point I've been trying to make.

rofl

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:03 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:If you were to be consistent and rational, you would be advocating that the policy NOT be enacted, since you realize that your opinion isn't enough for enactment.

When did I ever argue that it's a policy that should be enacted upon? I'll repeat it again as you must have missed it the first ten or so times I posted it: It's an opinion I posted in order to promote provocative discussion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:06 am**

Law wrote:The fact that opinion isn't enough to base law upon is not only epistemically rational, I'd say it's blatantly obvious.

Forgive me if it seemed that you were arguing that adoption by gay men should not be allowed.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:08 am**

I'll forgive you for implying that I was argueing for legislation to be drafted solely upon opinion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:13 am**

it seemed that you were saying that long term research should be done which proves that children do not suffer enough to warrant banning adoption, but until then, adoption should be banned.

I was saying that the opposite should hold - that long term research should be done BEFORE we consider banning.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:18 am**

I don't know where you got that idea from. I believe it's very logical that research should be done before drastic measures are taken.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 am**

my bad, then. I misunderstood you.

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:05 am**

S@M wrote:ahh the subtleties of another thread,

gets me everytime I read a thread and forget to read all the other threads that may contain relevant subtleties

no you silly apricot - I'm talking about the subtleties of points i made INSIDE the thread you are referring to...

Quake3World

Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?