Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #27040 on Comments
Level 138 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Send mail to unmentorable
Invite unmentorable to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 107 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 108 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress:
Level 138 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 139 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about unmentorable
I know why kids love...
Makes me moist
Oh, so crusty!
Gr8 Clring by Woolies
Time to rev up...
latest user's comments
- **unmentorable used "*roll 1, 00-99*"** **unmentorable rolls 75**
- **unmentorable used "*roll 1, 0000-9999*"** **unmentorable …
- **unmentorable used "*roll picture*"** **unmentorable rolle…
What's in the chest?
- Michael Schur is a producer and a writer for the show, and he …
- I started to type a fully constructed argument, then realised …
- Well I'm not gonna cut you, but I may end up cutting other people
- I thought it was a pretty solid and knowledgeable argument. Li…
But it was completely wrong, on every level.
The original post is fairly obviously an argument by analogy...and a pretty basic one at that. It is literally "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander."
engleman's counter argument is that the argument is wrong...because you can't equate the same tissue, in differing topographical configurations but fulfilling the exact same function, on individuals of different assigned sex...because (unstated) reasons and then goes on to cite a buch of made up facts. It is literally a worse argument than arguing against statistics with personal analogy.
I feel for you all, and I understand, but I am personally sick of Sea Otter "Science" vs. "Ignorance"(of the holy dogma of the Sea Otters, like on South Park, rather than something objective, like actual Science) in public discourse. I am well aware that the origin of my personal preference for objectivity, rather than the perceived subjective "righteousness" of members of another ideology, might itself be cultural bias, and is not very post-modern, but I would still like to hear someone argue on my terms.
I do sympathize with "morally right trumps factually correct," I really do understand that your heart is in the right place, and sincerely apologize for how this makes you all feel, but you have to admit that trying to be as objective as possible is the only way for groups with differing cultural values to live together in peace.
I started to type a fully constructed argument, then realised I don't care enough about arguing with you, since you evidently don't care about the content of the argument and you're thinking emotionally instead of reasonably. So here's a bit of reading you might want.
just to clarify, I am uncircumcised and am completely neutral on the matter. I just thought englman made a couple of good points. Not bulletproof, but more solid than the majority of the opposing arugments
- Personally I don't think it matters as much as people are maki…
I agree, do nut cut me
Well I'm not gonna cut you, but I may end up cutting other people
why no gf
Show Comments (0)