Ayn Rand's sudden increase in (internet) popularity?

Are you just going to keep regurgitating that quote are are you going to try and refute it? IF there is nothing to suggest or even hint at homosexuality then I think it's reasonable to say they did not engage in Homosexual activities.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Aren't you assuming that they don't go to soup kitchens but buy food instead with the money they are given?Snipes_2

I am considering the possibility that a considerable number of homeless people are not close to one: either their town doesnt have one or there is not one close (and that is a problem in very big cities).

Also it is not assumption that not all cities have those soup kitchens. You should have said "major cities".

I didnt make a claim though, you did. Therefore its your job to prove that claim.

I've never read any of her stuff, though I need to at some point. Right now I'm reading through Heart of Darkness mostly in lieu to how much influence it has in games and movies. Even though I already knew it had a heavy influence in Far Cry 2, I feel very enticed to play through it again. I did enjoy it once I knew how to really blow through it (skip all the extra missions, they are a waste of time), and I already felt a need to play it once more. Once I finish Heart of Darkness, Far Cry 2 run-through number two it is.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]No.

I am considering the possibility that a considerable number of homeless people are not close to one: either their town doesnt have one or there is not one close (and that is a problem in very big cities).

Also it is not assumption that not all cities have those soup kitchens. You should have said "major cities".

I didnt make a claim though, you did. Therefore its your job to prove that claim.

mattbbpl

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Are you just going to keep regurgitating that quote are are you going to try and refute it? IF there is nothing to suggest or even hint at homosexuality then I think it's reasonable to say they did not engage in Homosexual activities.

HAHAITHINKNOT

Her popularity stems from the limited government types, who are appalled at the Democrat's role in the U.S. government today. I can't get into The Fountainhead, but I enjoy reading her works on philosophy. By the way, why are we talking about gay priests in this thread? How did this become a topic of conversation?Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It cant be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Since at this point there is no tangible irrefutable proof, the arguments layed out to you about this issue is the only thing available. Counter them.

Teenaged

Simply by stating they are inadequate?

How are they inadequate?

(RED) What argument?

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Are you just going to keep regurgitating that quote are are you going to try and refute it? IF there is nothing to suggest or even hint at homosexuality then I think it's reasonable to say they did not engage in Homosexual activities.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Except it's not, because I already proved the statistical fact that at least a few of them almost, almost certainly were gay Interesting that you think it's reasonable to claim that something that is almost impossible is true. By the way, did you think it was reasonable of Ahmedinejad to claim that there were no gays in his country?

HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I did counter them. There's absolutely nothing to suggest they were Gay I have yet to see a counter to this argument other than assumptions.

Snipes_2

Simply by stating they are inadequate?

How are they inadequate?

(RED) What argument?

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

had2be done

T_P_O

:lol: so full of win

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why do you say it is "Almost Impossible". Homosexuality in those times was not a mindset, and they certainly didn't identify or even recognize themselves as GaySnipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]How?

Simply by stating they are inadequate?

How are they inadequate?

(RED) What argument?

Teenaged

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I did, by providing a link showing multiple soup kitchens in each state. Snipes_2

And the bolded portion is incorrect. Cities vary greatly in terms of size, social norms, and political environment. All of those factors can have significant impact on the kitchens/charities in that city. A single city is a laughably terrible sample size upon which to make generalizations.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Heh heh heh. It's almost impossible because the chance of it is less than 10^-88, and thus it's almost impossible in the same way that being hit by lightning 15 times in your life is almost impossible.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] If they cannot show me examples of this supposed Homosexuality why do I need to believe that some of them were GaySnipes_2

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] You do realize that a state is composed of many cities/towns, right? Multiple kitchens per state in no way indicats that there is a soup kitchen in every city within that state.mattbbpl

And the bolded portion is incorrect. Cities vary greatly in terms of size, social norms, and political environment. All of those factors can have significant impact on the kitchens/charities in that city. A single city is a laughably terrible sample size upon which to make generalizations.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] If they cannot show me examples of this supposed Homosexuality why do I need to believe that some of them were GaySnipes_2

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

You seem to violate that rule right now, assuming that since there isnt anything to tangibly show us they were homosexual then that is proof that they werent.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But we already agreed that tangible proof (examples) are not available to any of us.

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Still waiting for that evidence...over an hour later...Waiting for Regurgitating of argument to cease...

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That's why I used a Major City like New York City as an Example, I said it was Representative of other cities...

Snipes_2

And the bolded portion is incorrect. Cities vary greatly in terms of size, social norms, and political environment. All of those factors can have significant impact on the kitchens/charities in that city. A single city is a laughably terrible sample size upon which to make generalizations.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But we already agreed that tangible proof (examples) are not available to any of us.

I dont know their intentions but as far as I am concerned those arguments just aim in making you accept the possibility and that your certainty isnt factually supported.

Teenaged

You seem to violate that rule right now, assuming that since there isnt anything to tangibly show us they were homosexual then that is proof that they werent.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IT is Factually supported since there isn't anything to show or prove that they were Gay Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Is it factually supported of me to claim that I would win the lottery 10^88 times in a row, since there's nothing to prove otherwise?HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IT is Factually supported since there isn't anything to show or prove that they were Gay Snipes_2

You seem to violate that rule right now, assuming that since there isnt anything to tangibly show us they were homosexual then that is proof that they werent.

We dont know for a fact whether or not there were homosexual saints but the possibility remains that there might have been some.

Like I told you, thats as far as I am concerned. I dont know if HAHAITHINKNOT is trying to prove that we know for a fact that there were gay.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Lottery is not equatable to Sexual Orientation. ;)

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Like I said earlier "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence".

You seem to violate that rule right now, assuming that since there isnt anything to tangibly show us they were homosexual then that is proof that they werent.

Teenaged

We dont know for a fact whether or not there were homosexual saints but the possibility remains that there might have been some.

Like I told you, thats as far as I am concerned. I dont know if HAHAITHINKNOT is trying to prove that we know for a fact that there were gay.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Answer the question.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] There's no proof that they were...Doesn't this go both ways?

Snipes_2

We dont know for a fact whether or not there were homosexual saints but the possibility remains that there might have been some.

Like I told you, thats as far as I am concerned. I dont know if HAHAITHINKNOT is trying to prove that we know for a fact that there were gay.

But you're not talking to him now, and I already distanced myself from what HAHAITHINKNOT supports two posts ago. His arguments are still useful though to what I supported.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That was a proven fact: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/RetireEarly/WhyPoorPeopleWinTheLottery.aspx

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Answer the question.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] The link answers the Question. It's been proven, your assumption has not. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So that leaves us with the position:

We dont know for a fact whether or not there were homosexual saints but the possibility remains that there might have been some.

Like I told you, thats as far as I am concerned. I dont know if HAHAITHINKNOT is trying to prove that we know for a fact that there were gay.

Teenaged

But you're not talking to him now, and I already distanced myself from what HAHAITHINKNOT supports two posts ago. His arguments are still useful though to what I supported.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm very, very stupid - is the answer a yes or no? It's a yes-or-no question, after all.

HAHAITHINKNOT

No I wouldn't. Because no Saint was a Homosexual..Snipes_2

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your Question was proven as a fact. while your assumption was not. How else should I answer this? There's no "Yes or No" answer to the question you asked. Snipes_2

No I wouldn't. Because no Saint was a Homosexual..Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Yes there is. The question was, 'Is it factually supported of me to claim that I would win the lottery 10^88 times in a row, since there's nothing to prove otherwise?' Either it is, or it isn't. So, by all means, hit me. Nod or shake, if it's easier for you.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I just provided you with a link on the statistical possibility you have at winning the lottery. It's a proven fact that poor people win the lottery more often, now I assume you're not poor so...

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's trying to say that they WERE gay without a reasonable doubt. Snipes_2

But you're not talking to him now, and I already distanced myself from what HAHAITHINKNOT supports two posts ago. His arguments are still useful though to what I supported.

That is not true.

The reason I point it out now and pointed out earlier is that due to this you are seeking for extraordinary evidence or at least evidence that isnt the only one that would render this case closed. Since someone can be gay without acting upon it, then we dont exclusively look at their sex lives for proof. Besides werent most saints celibate (not sure)? That alone makes the homosexual activities criterion invalid since even if they were, that criterion wouldnt reveal it to us.

Nonetheless that doesnt mean that lack of evidence of homosexual acts means there is no homosexuality in group a.

No I wouldn't. Because no Saint was a Homosexual..Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats fine. I believe you.

But you're not talking to him now, and I already distanced myself from what HAHAITHINKNOT supports two posts ago. His arguments are still useful though to what I supported.

Teenaged

That is not true.

The reason I point it out now and pointed out earlier is that due to this you are seeking for extraordinary evidence or at least evidence that isnt the only one that would render this case closed. Since someone can be gay without acting upon it, then we dont exclusively look at their sex lives for proof. Besides werent most saints celibate (not sure)? That alone makes the homosexual activities criterion invalid since even if they were, that criterion wouldnt reveal it to us.

Nonetheless that doesnt mean that lack of evidence of homosexual acts means there is no homosexuality in group a.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]The number of times you enter in my hypothetical scenario is fixed, so personal wealth is an irrelevance. Now, answer the question.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] What you're trying to do isn't going to work. You can believe you'll win the Lottery every time, that doesn't make it true though. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I never doubted there was a possibility, I'm arguing that there's no evidence to prove there were any that engaged in Homosexual Activities, and that there were beyond a reasonable doubt Homosexual Saints. A Priest can be a Homosexual and be an extraordinarily good priest, he just cannot engage in Homosexual Activities or anything of the sort. Snipes_2

That is not true.

The reason I point it out now and pointed out earlier is that due to this you are seeking for extraordinary evidence or at least evidence that isnt the only one that would render this case closed. Since someone can be gay without acting upon it, then we dont exclusively look at their sex lives for proof. Besides werent most saints celibate (not sure)? That alone makes the homosexual activities criterion invalid since even if they were, that criterion wouldnt reveal it to us.

Nonetheless that doesnt mean that lack of evidence of homosexual acts means there is no homosexuality in group a.

People here arent trying to claim that they engaged in homosexual activities though, but that that some simple were homosexual (or that there is a chance some were homosexual).

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]And there you have it. You can believe that there were no homosexual saints, but that doesn't make it true.

HAHAITHINKNOT