The mathematical definition of marriage as represented in your bible is:

1+1=1

Adam and Eve are one.

Did you forget?

The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.

You have exposed yourself to a damaging counter argument.

Such as: If marriage is between two humans then two eight year old boys can be married. Or, whatsoever perversion that can be deduced thereby.

(You failed to be specific, and thereby provided very little in the way of the limit of the extension of your definition. But what you submitted is equally as illogical as the definition you countered.)

You certainly didn’t understand the reply or the point of my reply. Consequently, I will presume that you will misunderstand any post I could submit.

You have a thinking problem. This I cannot prove to you; for you have a thinking problem.

Also, the person who up-voted your argument suffers from the same problem.

(You do realize that you only proved my point. The point of course being your ignorance of refutation.)

I think what we have here is a failure of communication, both of us. While I am extremely careful with my choice of words I too am very careful with inferences I draw from your words.

And without going into the long drawn-out dispute of attempting to determine which of us lacks skill in both comprehension and discourse I think we ought to call this discourse un-settled.

Both of us feel as though we are beating our heads against the wall? It’s difficult to advance a position when the dialogue necessary to advance that position is falsely understood. Perhaps more care will be taken in the future to avoid this conclusion.

Agreed?

There is ZERO evidence to support this position. Increases in the minimum wage have had little to no adverse affects on the job market in state after state in the USA.

Self-refuting argument!!

You assert that there is ZERO evidence (with capital letters no doubt) and then admit that there is little adverse affects of min. wage increase. Don't contradict an assertion by agreeing with the assertion!

I think it's humorous you can infer from evidence that you say doesn't exist and yet claim from ZERO evidence that there is only a little evidence.

A reply is not a rebuttal, unless of course you are ignorant of refutation. And in that case you could refute my argument by simply affirming that the sky is blue.

Explain to me why it is obvious.

It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.

If you would have used the term ‘conservative’ I would have supposed you were referencing republicans exclusively. Yet, the term you used is ‘conservative ideologues’. And while you may argue that republicans are conservative ideologues I would also argue that republicans are not the only conservative ideologues. For I personally know many democrats who are conservative ideologues.

I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.

This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

The following is an illustration of the very reason why I asked you to qualify what you call extraordinary evidence:

You affirm that there are no stones that are white. I affirm that there are stones that are white. You assert that my assertion is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I in turn request the number of stones that you require as evidence that there are stones that are white. And you reply that my evidence is anecdotal if I present the evidence of white stones.

Remember, I am seeking to satisfy your request to provide the necessary evidence that brings into question the prudence of relying upon the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. I am not attempting to prove that the consensus opinion of mainstream economists is true or false in the future. You must realize that I am attempting to demonstrate the fact that when a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations we must realize that we have been misguided. And unless we want to be misguided in the future I recommend that we consider the track record of those who guide our expectations. Not that they may be right or wrong in the future, its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to follow the same course.

I’ll address your other statements after we settle this latest disconnect.

(You have assumed that I am attempting to draw an invalid inference.)

Agreed!

I might add that any right that is given by the pen can be taken by the pen.

Have you heard of 'natural justice'? If not, then I think that you would enjoy that study.

In reply to your dispute, I want you to be aware that I don’t consider the political spectrum as subject to a geometric definition. Sorry for that implied description of politics. But, in answer to your question, I am more inclined to consider the political spectrum as a recipe of governance. Governments have all the ingredients of all aspects of economics and political authority. It’s just the proportions and when they are added to the recipe of government.

Would you like an example or two?

The government of the US contains the ingredients:

Democracy

Communism

Capitalism

Socialism

Tyranny

Fascism

Anarchy

However, what distinguishes the US from China is only a matter of the proportions of the same ingredients. They both have the same ingredients, but the ingredients were added in different amounts in different orders, and in the end they taste the same, only one may be more ‘salty’ or more ‘sweet’ than the other government. Furthermore, the taste of each recipe is subject to the changing preferential tastes of the subjects and principals.

Pardon the hasty post!

And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.

Explain to me why it is obvious. Because nothing contained within your post would allow me to validly infer that you were referencing a republican or something similar.

(Do you not realize the ambiguity inherent in the term conservative ideologues?)

Shall I explain?

This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists…

Very well!

Who do you consider to be mainstream, and how many failed predictions of the same do I need to present? I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. However, you would then argue that

A. they are not mainstream

B. that thirty is not enough

C. ten years is too long or not long enough

D. or whatsoever else may suit your denial.

I think you ought to study the history of The Glass Steagall Act and the consensus opinion of economists concerning the Act. You will find a lot of evidence that may just try your trust of mainstream economists.

(Many economists assert that today’s economic crisis can be directly traced to the repeal of Glass Steagall which occurred in 1999.)

I find it extremely laughable that there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your arguments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.

Now, allow me the license to appeal to your sense of reality. In the last thirty years, and more quickly the last ten years, there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class. The record profits of Wall Street are occurring at the same time that record wealth is being lost from the common man. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? Hell, we can go back thirty+ years on this truth of reality.

Conclusion:

Go ahead and trust the consensus opinion of mainstream economists and likewise observe the continued transfer of your wealth. And perhaps you may learn that maybe, just maybe, the economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. Consistency establishes intent! A man (economist) who consistently advocates policy that transfers your wealth to another is guilty of seeking to transfer your wealth.

I thought liberals were for the little guy? Well, I am no liberal, but I certainly am for the little guy.

What say you?

Well in your initial agument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future.

Or perhaps you could be a little more discerning about word usage, particularly when it is my argument you are considering.

All US economists are conservative ideologues...

You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum.

Conservative: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.

Ideologues: a particularly zealous or doctrinaire supporter of an ideology.

All US economists are conservative ideologues; regardless of whether or not they are democrats, republicans, or independents etc.

My argument is about economists not politicians. I described attributes of all economists, none of which are political.

(If you mean the conservative political party, then communicate what you mean, for I can only understand what you mean by what you state. And if what you state is not what you mean then choose words that communicate the meaning of what you’re thinking.)

Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none.

Finally, we get to the core problem of your viewpoint.

You’ve not researched the opinions of other economists whose opinions are not the consensus. Case in point, Nouriel Roubini, one of many economists who predicted the current economic mess, did so in 2006. Nor was he the only economist who predicted today’s crisis. But, it is self-evident to me that you failed to do your own research, and then as a consequence you find that my assertion, ”the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.”, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

What is extraordinary is the fact that you are blinded by your own biased viewpoint, so much so that you presumed there is no evidence to contradict your viewpoint and therefore there is no reason to consider a contrary or contradictory viewpoint of the consensus opinion of economists.

However, if you do find it within yourself to challenge your viewpoint, you will find that there were many Economists who predicted the crisis. And you will find that the consensus of economists was predicting good times. Moreover, the economists who were predicting good-times were mocking and laughing at economists such as Dr. Doom.

.

Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

You must stop with the straw-man arguments with me. I am being as polite as I can be, but you are testing my limits of politeness.

We both know that the consensus of economists missed the current ‘great recession’ , but what you fail to recognize is that there are some economists who did predict this recession. Not only did they predict the recession, their opinions were not the consensus. Albeit, your refusal to research the opinions of maverick economists indicates to me that you deny that there are indeed economists who predicted this recession. Furthermore, you take it to the extreme of being extraordinary, both in claim and evidence.

If you find the above to be obscure in terminology, consider the following illustration.

You can’t call my evidence extraordinary when you fail to even go look for contrary evidence before assuming a valid viewpoint.

I could continue with this rebuttal, but I think you realize the error in your argument.