The burden of the Intellectual

[mrstickball]

Runa216 said:

mrstickball said:

Mr Khan said:
I agree. There are certain arguments on which the discussion should, by all rights, be closed.

Sure, but the list Runa gives is pretty shoddy and is still open to skepticism.

Only in the mind of some intelliectuals are certain issues settled, since it meshes with their worldview. Throw in any other "Settled" issue that is in opposition to their worldview, and they will have a major problem with it. Or offer any data set that contradicts thier view, and they "Refute" it by saying the data is wrong, without recognizing that the data point may, in fact, be a legitimate point of critism.

No, the list I gave is not shoddy, and is not open to skepticism. these claims came from years of research, as well as lengthy discussions with teachers, professors, and medical professionals.  I've done my research, and some things have been conclusively proven no matter how many people disagree.  There are scientists out there who have 'scientific proof' that global warming is a myth....but they are heavily outweighed by those who have scientific proof to the contrary.  there will always be detractors, but I'm going with the scientific consensus.  

Also, there's a whole post there not just the list of infallible truths, discussing some of my points would be nice, as opposed to just opposing facts for the sake of getting in an argument.  In fact, had you actually READ the whole thing, you'd see that this entire thread is about people who take opinion and heresay as fact...and why that mentality needs to be snuffed out. 

Hilarious.

Let's go over your list again:

Circumcision is a barbaric act and has no medical benefits.

Actually, it does have medical benefits. Are there risks as well? Absolutely. But the whole point of your statement is that you have an "Infalliable truth". That is false, as there are some possible benefits of circumcision. You may disagree with said benefits, but they do exist, and have been verified by multiple studies on the effects of male circumcision.

 

Your sexuality is not a choice.

If its not a choice, then that would mean there are no bisexuals, correct? After all, they choose which orientation they want to have from time to time, correct? And of course, the availability of any statement that suggests that someone has chosen to be gay, may, in fact prove your argument is invalid, no? Again, you assume that your point of view is indisputable, despite research and some statements to the contrary.

 

Forcing yourself to do or be something that is against your nature is harmful.

What if the action is harmful to someone else? Charles Manson did something in his nature. I would assume that you wouldn't dispute that him killing others was, in fact, harmful?

 

Your skin color does not dictate your actions.

I would agree. But that doesn't change the cultural aspects of how and why people act. One can correlate a lot of things to skin color, culture, race, and other things.

 

Evolution is conclusively proven and has been witnessed.

Could you give me a citation of an eyewitness account of macroevolution?

 

Climate Change is most certainly a thing and needs to be addressed.

Climate change has been occurring since the Earth was formed billions of years ago, no? Your second statement, however, is the real problem. How are you wanting to address such percieved changes? I imagine that, given your other statements, they involve using power to harm others financially in the name of "Climate Change".

 

Guns are tools that are specifically designed to kill.

What about the rifles used in the olympic games for sport? What about paintball guns? What about all the guns my brother owns which have never once been used to kill another living entity? Furthermore, even if some firearms were designed to kill, what of it?