well actually no, a better example would be "my shirt isn't red, this doesn't prove its yellow" your just lowering your own argument with stupidity.



more to the point would be, if he had a stroke and it caused a reaction in his nerve patterns altering his mindset as is supposed to happen this would then be proof of a mental affliction for homosexuality, but as there have been no case studies and this process wasn't monitored by a machine such as an MRI scanner to note his brain wave patterns then that can't be proved either.



It isn't a case of yes or no so proving or disproving do not come into it, such as the colour example above, there are more than two scenario's so it could be anything.

Let me get this straight.

You have done a tackiness and scantily-cladness comparison on two of the three worst papers ever printed and have decided that the Mail's stance is hypocritical?



Yet you still read them?



I don't want to spoil your lovely little frisson of outrage but can't you see the flaw here?

The ball is now in Dally's court to justify his statement that it "arguably" proves something.

It was deliberately stupid to highlight how stupid Dally was being. And you may wish to work on your ability to construct a simple sentence before you go around calling others stupid.

According to Dally, he doesn't read the Mail. He just links to their website about four times a day. Though how he knows which articles to link to without reading them is anyone's guess.

well not really, it isn't stupid to associate a mental dysfunction with homosexuality being caused by a mental affliction, what is stupid is that its assumed it was the stroke that caused him to become homosexual without any actual proof.

Yes, it is.

Whoah.



Earlier you were telling us about logic and proof ... and now you say this?

I blame it on drugs.



I mean, Kurt Cobain was straight before he started using smack.

Really? That is sheer prejudice and a closed mind speaking.

Speaking of which ... where is the "arguable" proof you mentioned?

The use of the word "arguable" was to stimulate debate! Unfortunately, as always with these "emotive" issues people "know" the answer through their brain-washed prejudice and debate descends into the gutter within seconds.