.. there's a vast difference between the words think, believe, feel and know ..<quoted text>
I am not going to split hairs because I said...
"Personally, it would have made more sense to me and been more consistent with past approaches had you simply said you have studied this in depth and feel she is incorrect."
..."feel and not "know". It really is not relevant to what I am asking. If you think "know" should have been used that's fine
But I will ask again, when do you feel people should defer to others and based on what? Does someone being gay or straight or white or black or whatever automatically make them an expert in everything to do with it over someone who isn't?
And if not, what would be the standard you would apply when people outside a group should defer to someone inside a group?
I am not sure why we are having trouble connecting on this. I look forward to your answer.
.. in my original post, I revealed my knowledge was based on articles and scholarly works underscored by personal research and experience ..
.. Truth's ingrained belief ignores substantial counter-evidence and is impervious to argument. People, including you, must identify the pink elephant pooping on the living room rug and point out that the emperor has no clothes ..
.. Truth may be a kind and good-willed person but to justify her personal belief she relies on biographies which may be false instead of reason, research, science or scholarly findings and disregards anything that disagrees with her chosen opinion ..
.. her position is bankrupt of reason, damages society and portrays homosexuals as child molesters. Her supposition seems to be that, because she believes something, everybody must grant its validity, including me ..
.. does a belief become fact because someone believes it? Is everybody suppose to acknowledge as correct an opinion when the bulk of evidence discredits that opinion on every front ??..
.. Truth thinks her opinion on homosexuality is truth and that no one, including River and myself, should call it wrong. In reality, it's a standard condemnation of homosexuality that, by insinuation, inaccurately portrays gays as child molesters ..
.. am I mistaken, unfair or unkind to say outright that such thinking is irrational? However you view it, any claim to unquestionable truth based on the use of selective data is silly. It knows nothing of coherent reasoning or evidenced argument and it wants to know nothing of it ..
.. how could one argue with such a position? The impossibility of any discussion based on counter evidence evinces the irrationality of her position ..