ST Alpha - "I've read it before, and to put it nicely, I think she's full of it. (nm)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 185

In response to "Ethicist - and certainly no religious righty nut - Margaret Somerville argues that children have the right to a mixed gender upbringing. -- (link)" by Name Withheld By Request

I've read it before, and to put it nicely, I think she's full of it. (nm)

Posted by musubi Nov 4 '08, 22:42

her stance is basically cradled in the notion that marriage and procreation is intertwined, but they're not, or married couple would be force to have children.

Responses:

thank you. that link didn't work for me, but i was wondering if that was one of those pieces. - citizen b. Nov 4, 22:46
And as a supporter of SSM, that's perfectly your right, but it doesn't cancel out the argument as unworthy of discussion. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:44 6
- It does because it's used as smokescreen for bigotry. - musubi Nov 4, 22:48 5
  - And this exact attitude is why 8 passes tonight. Instead of arguing the policy, you argue a person's right to disagree with you. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:50 4
    - I've pointed out the logical flaws with the Sommervilles P.O.V., you're the one who brought up silly "right to disagree" arguements. - musubi Nov 4, 22:58 3
      - No. Because she has a rebuttal for the "married couples without kids" argument. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 23:05
      - It's the arrogance and intellectual laziness of dismissing all varying opinions as 'bigotry' that prevents you from appealing to your opponents. - Dr.Vermin, pundit Nov 4, 23:03 1
        
        I'm still waiting for a logical reasoning that doesn't use illogical exteremes like protecting procreation, polygamy or marrying animals. - musubi Nov 4, 23:07

Post a message top

I've read it before, and to put it nicely, I think she's full of it. (nm)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.