Reply to: No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

[shaunbhoy]

I suggested that you were just going with the flow, because you didn't present any reasoning behind your opinion. You went straight for ad hominem, characterising those who don't hold your opinion as dinosaurs.

Nor did the original two posters that my response was directed at. I notice you did not take them to task however.

Of course going with the flow of popular opinion demonstrates the same lack of reasoning as those who are daily mail readers - it's just the flipside of the same coin.

Only if you are naive enough to conclude that "popular opinion" must always be wrong, or at least poorly thought out. Not always the case.

It is possible to think that Elton John becoming a parent, at the age of 63 is perfectly alright, that his sexual preference is irrelevant, without mindlessly following the zeitgeist. It is also possible to think that it isn't right, without being a homophobic dinosaur.

I would conclude that the burden of responsibility to elaborate on one's position lies with the OP in this instance. Had he done this I would have offered an equally detailed explanation for my position. Odd that you are only choosing to comment on one side of this debate. Or then again maybe not.

[EternalOptimist]

Going with the flow is taking the path of least resistance, like a bit of water flowing down into the sea, or an electron whizzing down a bit of copper wire.
Causing minimum upset, minimum strife but still doing the goodly good.


I often wondered what was wrong with that

[NotAllThere]

Close. I'd go for euthanasing the dinosaurs, and having the sheep roasted, then curried. With plain boiled rice and sag bhaji.

[MarillionFan]

No it isn't. It's the entire point. "Going with the flow" is the the direct opposite of deliberating about what makes sense and is valid before deciding upon an opinion.

I suggested that you were just going with the flow, because you didn't present any reasoning behind your opinion. You went straight for ad hominem, characterising those who don't hold your opinion as dinosaurs. Of course going with the flow of popular opinion demonstrates the same lack of reasoning as those who are daily mail readers - it's just the flipside of the same coin.

It is possible to think that Elton John becoming a parent, at the age of 63 is perfectly alright, that his sexual preference is irrelevant, without mindlessly following the zeitgeist. It is also possible to think that it isn't right, without being a homophobic dinosaur.

<patronise>
It's perfectly normal, when you're young to think that your point of view is the only possible correct, rational and ethical perspective. But if you continue with that when you're older, then you will become a dinosaur yourself. </patronise>

I don't agree with that either. Your initial post gave the basis of two options. If after examining the facts & deliberating you decide that your viewpoint is either 'sheep' or 'dinosaur' then that places you effectively within a liberal or conservative viewpoint. Which may actually be your view. I assuming your middle ground must be Labour and so would be to borrow money to educate dinosaurs and patronise the sheep.

[NotAllThere]

.But for some of us, we deliberate about what makes sense and is valid before deciding upon an opinion. If that opinion tallies with the majority it need be neither lazy or invalid, but could quite easily be construed as "going with the flow", provided one surrounds oneself with like-minded rational company....

Now you are just arguing over semantics.

No it isn't. It's the entire point. "Going with the flow" is the the direct opposite of deliberating about what makes sense and is valid before deciding upon an opinion.

I suggested that you were just going with the flow, because you didn't present any reasoning behind your opinion. You went straight for ad hominem, characterising those who don't hold your opinion as dinosaurs. Of course going with the flow of popular opinion demonstrates the same lack of reasoning as those who are daily mail readers - it's just the flipside of the same coin.

It is possible to think that Elton John becoming a parent, at the age of 63 is perfectly alright, that his sexual preference is irrelevant, without mindlessly following the zeitgeist. It is also possible to think that it isn't right, without being a homophobic dinosaur.

<patronise>
It's perfectly normal, when you're young to think that your point of view is the only possible correct, rational and ethical perspective. But if you continue with that when you're older, then you will become a dinosaur yourself. </patronise>

[EternalOptimist]

We are only really here for one thing, to procreate and die, just like everything else. How can it be natural to want to be with a partner you can't procreate with. We would be exctint if this was natural. I don't mind people being homosexual, each to their own but I can't stand the we are all equal and I am homophobic for thinking it is unnatural. Saying that I tend to be against anything where I am told what I can and can't think/say......

There is a big problem with this. A lot of older people marry/remarry knowing they can never have kids
there is a life outside of having kids, although, technically, thats whats life is all about

[AtW]

Get over it you pair of dinosaurs. The child will have as much chance of a happy childhood as the child of any pop star, and a great deal MORE chance than the average sprog popped out by Wayne and Waynetta Slob.

What the stupid said.

It goes without saying that your own children would have been much better off if they were Elton's...

[d000hg]

Now you are just arguing over semantics.

Actually I'd say I'm arguing over the denotation rather than semantics.

Nobody important ever believed the Earth was flat. I just thought I'd point that one out before the dragon-worshippers log in ...

You have an interestingly narrow definition of "important".

The thing that bothers me is the 'we are all equal' and 'it's natural' and all that. Technically it doesn't make people equal and it isn't natural. If you are relgious that bring in another raft of issues but forgetting that for the minute... We are only really here for one thing, to procreate and die, just like everything else. How can it be natural to want to be with a partner you can't procreate with.

As has been pointed out, homosexuality has been observed/studied in animals of several species and has been around in humankind for millennia. People don't only shag for procreation so how is it unnatural simply for this reason? Animals don't even have the ability to reason that sex ---> babies so they are doing it purely for enjoyment or through some hardwired instruction "put it in and squirt".

[shaunbhoy]

The 'surrogate' part is a bit wierd though, why can't they just adopt.

They tried that the previous year. "Government Regulations" in Ukraine deemed that the AIDS-infected lad they wanted to adopt was better off staying put in an Orphanage there.

[sbakoola]

Strangely I can't see what the fuss is about, provided the kid is allowed to develop his/her own views then fine. Plus the kid gets spoilt rotten also and gets a privaledged life with a pop star dad.

What more do people want ?

I'm not an Elton John fan as a person or as a pop star but it would be interesting if the kid turns out to be a stable, well rounded and successful person.

The 'surrogate' part is a bit wierd though, why can't they just adopt.

[northernladuk]

I don't really have a problem with them adopting, as has been pointed out already he will be brought up much better than most kids from council estates so can't be a bad thing. Having a mother and a step dad is probably more damaging than two happy fathers.

I don't have a problem with them being homosexual either, the flouncers and mincers I really can't stand but that is more a personality thing...

The thing that bothers me is the 'we are all equal' and 'it's natural' and all that. Technically it doesn't make people equal and it isn't natural. If you are relgious that bring in another raft of issues but forgetting that for the minute... We are only really here for one thing, to procreate and die, just like everything else. How can it be natural to want to be with a partner you can't procreate with. We would be exctint if this was natural. I don't mind people being homosexual, each to their own but I can't stand the we are all equal and I am homophobic for thinking it is unnatural. Saying that I tend to be against anything where I am told what I can and can't think/say......

[Zippy]

Nobody important ever believed the Earth was flat. I just thought I'd point that one out before the dragon-worshippers log in ...

[shaunbhoy]

It's not going with the flow if you consider the matter objectively and come to your own conclusion, which happens to be the same as other peoples'. It's going with the flow if you take the common/fashionable viewpoint without doing your own research.

Now you are just arguing over semantics.

[d000hg]

It's not going with the flow if you consider the matter objectively and come to your own conclusion, which happens to be the same as other peoples'. It's going with the flow if you take the common/fashionable viewpoint without doing your own research.

[shaunbhoy]

Well, you would say that wouldn't you.

OOooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Get Betty Big Bollocks!!!

Going with the flow is, by definition, mindless. It requires no thought, no reasoning, no effort.

Maybe in your case. But for some of us, we deliberate about what makes sense and is valid before deciding upon an opinion. If that opinion tallies with the majority it need be neither lazy or invalid, but could quite easily be construed as "going with the flow", provided one surrounds oneself with like-minded rational company.
I expect that at one point it was deemed as "going with the flow" to poo-poo suggestions that the Earth was flat.
It might also be bracketed as "going with the flow" to suggest you are a bit of a when it comes to moderating, as a number of posters have suggested such.
However, I will refrain from jumping to that conclusion until I have studied the matter in greater detail.