Send a Message
to Spare

Comments

613

Joined

Jan 6, 2007

Spare Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

QUOTE who="Spare "] I am going to back up my statement that economics is involved and not your straw man that this is about economics! Economics behind NotAmused criticism of Amber’s sources: There is a supply of both non-peer reviewed scientific writings and peer reviewed scientific writings. Each of these has its own demand curve. With the quality of peer reviewed scientific writings much higher than non-peer reviewed and with the price of peer reviewed scientific writing decreased (they were provided for free in debate minus the opportunity cost of Amber reading them here), demand for peer reviewed writings was increased while demand for non-peer reviewed scientific writings was decreased. Thus, Amber should not use quotes from non-peer reviewed scientific writing in at least this debate. So, we have seen that this topic is not and cannot be about economics, but that economics is involved. Thus, NotAmused’s straw man is confirmed, revealing his ignorance in his earlier reply to me and proving NotAmused is a greater fool than he believes. [/QUOTE] My less advanced thinking combined with my willingness to search for and document my own thinking errors vs. your self idolization? Hmm. Which approach to choose, which approach to choose? I’ll take whatever approach Wooffa rejected. Hard headedness was a vice when he did it. Somehow I doubt watching someone more intelligent than me take pride in his stupidities is something I should emulate. However, since you disagree, welcome to my ignore list.  (Mar 16, 2007 | post #1414)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

Against the man fallacy by Spare: So does Wooffa, geneass.  (Mar 16, 2007 | post #1386)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

And a paraphrasing of the other oneI indicated PCD’s post to you followed a similar route to one I took, but it did have one important difference. He was contrasting U.S.A. with another current country, but in my related post to you, I was thinking about differences between acceptable behavior during the European dark ages and this century in America. By the way, I’m not sure how this reply of yours to me would be detrimental to PCD’s similar post to you. His contrasts different states of acceptance in different countries while mine contrasts different states of acceptance among white Americans through some of time.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1378)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

My posts have disappeared. This was one of themI was referring to the supply and demand curves of the reading material, not practical medicine could be situations. I am not interested in unprovable conspiracy theories. I also do not believe that proving another medical conspiracy would make others suggested real.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1377)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

I was referring to the supply and demand curves of the reading material, not practical medicine could be situations. I am not interested in unprovable conspiracy theories. I also do not believe that proving another medical conspiracy would make others suggested real.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1373)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

I actually put my point into words and posted it. That comment on PCD's post was about how similar PCD's reply was to the route I was going to take. However, his was a contrast between this country and another while mine was not. I was thinking of a difference between church dominated beliefs of the European dark ages and this American century.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1372)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

This is the second time I will show you made a conclusion without knowing enough to prove itQUOTE who="Spare "]<quoted text> One other thing, your claim that this is not about economics only reveals your ignorance. If you want to challenge me on that point, I'll make an economic analysis out of your current argument with Amber to prove you are a greater fool than you believe, even though you are intelligent.[/QUOT EI am going to back up my statement that economics is involved and not your straw man that this is about economics! Economics behind NotAmused criticism of Amber’s sources: There is a supply of both non-peer reviewed scientific writings and peer reviewed scientific writings. Each of these has its own demand curve. With the quality of peer reviewed scientific writings much higher than non-peer reviewed and with the price of peer reviewed scientific writing decreased (they were provided for free in debate minus the opportunity cost of Amber reading them here), demand for peer reviewed writings was increased while demand for non-peer reviewed scientific writings was decreased. Thus, Amber should not use quotes from non-peer reviewed scientific writing in at least this debate. So, we have seen that this topic is not and cannot be about economics, but that economics is involved. Thus, NotAmused’s straw man is confirmed, revealing his ignorance in his earlier reply to me and proving NotAmused is a greater fool than he believesPossibilit ies: If one person finds a joke not humorous, it is not a joke. If one person finds a joke humorous, it is a joke. If one person finds a joke not humorous, it is not a joke. If everyone exposed to a joke finds it not humorous (including the teller), it is not a joke. If everyone exposed to a joke finds it humorous, it is a joke. If everyone exposed to a joke finds it humorous, it is not a joke. This statement could be directed to at least two earlier posts, one from myself and one from you. Did you wish to make this more specific or get back to the topic?  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1356)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

Lady, you are using the word fashion correctly, but are using the wrong point of view to follow what I actually wrote. I am saying it became fashionable not to kill, maim, or threaten the lives of gay people in many countries. That has noting to do with the fashionableness of being gay, but I say it increased the value of those who try to understand gays. This is still not the point of the discussion, but something that likely caused the discussion to be started. That was only put here to show NotAmused economics is involved and to encourage NotAmused to not support my use of economics with a straw man statement.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1352)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

Aha, my point covered in advance.  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1341)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

Wrong. Homosexuality can be called in fashion since major religious leaders publicly against homosexuality do not have the incredible military power they used to unless perhaps you focus on third world countries. Fashion towards gayness need not have anything to do with the population percentage of gays, just the survivability of those who "come out".  (Mar 15, 2007 | post #1340)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

That is not an acceptable excuse for missing an obvious point. I was supporting his statement and that was missed in his reply.  (Mar 14, 2007 | post #1319)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

Just for fun (and to make a point), here is an economic analysis of why the question that started this topic is likely to have increased on the internet. The world’s value (price) of those who understand gays increased when the world’s fashion to gayness increased (demand shift for people who understanding). This has motivated people to increase their personal value in society by learning about this topic on the internet (supply shift for people who understand). NotAmused, your implying that I thought this topic was about economics was BOTH a straw man AND against the man. This is not about economics and I NEVER CLAIMED that it was, but economics is involved.  (Mar 14, 2007 | post #1317)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

One other thing, your claim that this is not about economics only reveals your ignorance. If you want to challenge me on that point, I'll make an economic analysis out of your current argument with Amber to prove you are a greater fool than you believe, even though you are intelligent.  (Mar 14, 2007 | post #1312)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

By the way, the previous use of economics was on topic as it supported the opposing side in an absurd way (meaning credibility is important) and the next use of economics was also on topic because it helps refute Amber's argument that the writings you are debating should be included in medical practice because profit should not be a driving force for medical practice. I believe (know) that line of thinking can be traced backwards to the topic.  (Mar 14, 2007 | post #1311)

Evolution Debate

Homosexuality and Evolution

The economic growth this creates is not fantastic (think economic growth of the blood letting practice). Maybe you missed the joke.  (Mar 14, 2007 | post #1310)

Q & A with Spare

Headline:

Sitting Down...Again

Hometown:

Orlando

Neighborhood:

Notorious Houseboy Posers

Local Favorites:

Gas station by the woods

I Belong To:

My stomach and a dog.

When I'm Not on Topix:

I'm buying another computer.

Read My Forum Posts Because:

they make you fighting mad, then bore you to sleep

I'm Listening To:

air rushing from my mouth.

Read This Book:

ok

Favorite Things:

ceramic credit card knives, glass knives, and pilot error. They all laugh at airport security.

On My Mind:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...this has been a test of eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Blog / Website / Homepage:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

I Believe In:

Infinite Competing Religions: When you claim a belief that cannot be proven or disproven is true, I take the side of every other religion and idea that might be possible. You will probably lose; some of mine will win.