"King and King" (not spooky but news just the same)

[Icarian Decoding]

I think I explained that right above what you posted.

[Oubliette]

Homosexuality may once have been taboo, but now is not. That doesn't mean there aren't people who resist the change, if there weren't the activists would get bored.

[Oubliette]

Cannibalism, Bestiality, and Incest are all cross-culturally taboo, and by that, I mean it has a very low acceptance rate in any culture.

[Oubliette]

I won't dignify anything else you said, in response to my post, with a response.

[Icarian Decoding]

It has very low acceptance rates, but so does homosexuality then. It all depends on the point of view you are looking at. Say that 50% of the world accepted Homosexuality, but only 5% of the world accepted Cannibalism. This is at two-thousand and six. Fast forward fifty years. How many people do you think would accept Homosexuality? How many would accept Cannibalism in return? It's an increasing rate. People are generally becoming more tolerant, so to say they are all cross-cultural taboos are to assert that they always will be. We've seen homosexuality break out, then why not Cannibalism? Beastiality? Incest? Keep in mind, Incest has been practiced widely over the world, especially in ages when there was no one else around.

[Oubliette]

Originally Posted by Loy

Icarian-just to clarify, when you say that faggishness is a cross-cultural taboo, are you saying that it's banned or that it's not looked at the same way as breederism? On a cultural viewpoint, homosexuality is actually accepted much more in other cultures than over here in the good ol' US of A. Now this doesn't imply that it's preffered, but that it's accepted as a fact of life much more than here. To say that there's a "cross-cultural taboo" about it is simply wrong from a sociological point of view. (and yes, if you wanna debate, I'll throw the examples out...I've been drinking, so I'm too lazy to do so at this exact second)

Eyes Of A Tragedy-I'll get into the "parents right" thing with EPS, but for now.....to toss out the bestiality comparison is just sick and wrong, and even though plenty of people here have already pointed it out to you, I don't think there's been enough force with their voices, so I'll re-iterate=HOW IN THE FUCK CAN YOU EVEN DARE TO COMPARE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH ANIMAL FUCKING!!!????? I mean, really? The act of two consenting adults of the same species versus the exploitation of one species against another? Sorry, but your argument (if you had one...and again, I'll deal with that with EPS) just lost any validity with that bit oif hyperbole you tacked onto the end there....and if you're wondering how the validity got lost, let me toss in this bit of knowledge.....in Texas, where they're all pissed that anti-sodomy laws can't be used to fuck with homos anymore, a bunch of the Republican legislators are trying to find a way to outlaw faggotry and get the populace to denegrate homos without seeming discriminatory. Alot have taken from the Santorum page in this crusade by comparing of homosexuality with incest and bestiality. Yet (and this is fucking hilarious) a number of these same legislators are also trying to quietly REMOVE the already existing laws that criminalize bestiality from the Texas lawbooks......now, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm just pointing out that your argument is a repeat of the same argument that legislators from Texas have used....you probably heard it and copied it because it sounded good...and I'm just pointing out that these fucktards (and their arguments) aren't exactly on the lofty pedestal you're putting them on, and therefore, their hypocrisy becomes your hypocrisy.

EPS-I agree that kids shouldn't be learning about fucking at school until they're in 6th grade. However, the story (and I got curious, so I hunted down a copy and read it....,and yes, it's as crappy as all pre-teen literature) has nothing to do with fucking. It has to do with love. And I hate to point out the obvious, but being a fag isn't as much about who you fuck as much as it has to do with who are you attracted to, and thus, who can you fully express your love with.

Now, your son looks at breeding as being connected with marriage. Good for him (and really, no sarcasm there). My son, however, knows that babies involve sex. How do I know that he knows this? It has to do with him asking me "why do people have to have sex to make babies?" (and I said "it has to do with biology"...."oh, I hate biology"....and thus, I staved off the fully detailed talk another month or so).

owever, even with his knowledge of the activity of sex, he also understands this little thing called "love"....he's seen so many examples of different kinds of love-me and him, me and Laura, me and movies, him and his sister, him and his mom, his mom and her boyfriend...he knows that sex and love aren't neccesarily connected, and that love is MUCH more important than sex.

Now, I'd agree with you if this book were about fucking, but it isn't. It's about two people that fall in love. And this is what the lesson should be=what fucking problem is there if the two people who fall in love happen to be of the same gender? As far as I see, that was the lesson, and there's no problem, period.

As far as parents rights are concerned...sorry, but I'm gonna be a bit cold here-if the parents beliefs are detrimental to the child becoming a well-rounded human being, then the parents should be told that they're fucked up. Let me give you an example (and this is one I saw in high school)-history teacher is going to teach about the holocaust. Kids parents are holocaust deniers, and pull their child out of class by invoking the "parental rights" clause. Now, were the parents in the right for pulling their child out of classes that went against their personal beliefs, even though those beliefs were straight up wrong?

And yes, I know there's plenty of debate over homosexuality....hell, it's this very debate that got Bush into office in '04 (and don't debate me on this one....I'm only saying that Bush got elected because he hates fags because...well, that's what the people who voted for him said. Sorry. Any other kind of spinning is just bullshit). I'm just saying that going after a teacher who's pointing out that fags are human beings is just ludicrous to the point of absurdity....to steal from Vonnegut, it's liken to putting on a suit of armor to attack a banana split.

To summarise-I know where you're coming from, but you've got the wrong outlook on this subject. And I hope you know that I'm not attacking you, but that I have to point out the missing points in your argument...

(note to self-don't drink so much before going behind friends keyboard...you sound like such a pussy when you're fucked up, Loy)

If I could organize my thoughts like this person I would never shut up, so I guess it's for the best.

[darkmartin82]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

People are generally becoming more tolerant, so to say they are all cross-cultural taboos are to assert that they always will be. We've seen homosexuality break out, then why not Cannibalism? Beastiality? Incest? Keep in mind, Incest has been practiced widely over the world, especially in ages when there was no one else around.

Since a majority of people is agains hurting (innocent) people or animals, so incest or **** (for that matter) and beastality will remain a taboo.

Concented homosexuality has no victims. Even openmindedness has its limmits. Even the most open minded Goth will try not to hurt people.

edit -blocking out certain words is good, the thing I ment whas involuntry sex.

[Icarian Decoding]

The problem with that is, the most openminded goth may try to hurt people. Openmindedness doesn't mean pacifistic.

You say homosexuality has no victims. This is true from your point of view. Take it from a Christian Fundy. It's harming themselves, taking themselves from God's kingdom, and therefore it's like committing suicide.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Icarian -

So, you're calling yourself a member of the Fundamentalist movement?

[Icarian Decoding]

If I did, would you have a problem with that?
It's bad wording. When I said, "Take it from a Christian Fundy", I meant "Take it from the point of view of a Christian Fundy".

[darkmartin82]

Icarian Decoding

With concented homosexuality I mean, the person that is gay, male or female.
There is a difrence between getting hurt and being offended!

Thats why in the long run homosexuality will be accepted, and the other things mentioned before will not.

Besides, I attend church and I'm part of a discussion group. Both the revs I know are gay, one female, one male. Cristianity teaches openmindedness, even on this island where people are for the majority preservative on their beleefs.

[Icarian Decoding]

Then, Oh Wise DarkMartin, please explain these two blokes to me:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/images/...tes%20fags.jpg

[darkmartin82]

I regret my words, let me refrace,

Where I live the church teaches openmindedness and has openly declared gays to be accepted, and I forgot to mention it is the protestand church, not the catholic, because they don't.

In holland these two blokes would be arrested and put in jail for discrimitation.

[Icarian Decoding]

So, you're discriminating the discriminators? That's kind of ironic. Today's been an ironic day..

Getting hurt and getting offended is the same thing.
define: hurt
ache: be the source of pain
define: offended
hurt or upset;

Your Church teaches opendmindness. That's great. But you have to deal with America. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but America doesn't have the track record of being the brightest crayon in the box.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

If I did, would you have a problem with that?

I'll just be honest and not bother to tiptoe around the tulips here - yes, it fucking would.

When I first decided that I wanted God in my life and I went into a Baptist church it was the worst mistake I ever made.

They had me cover my tattoos. Wear a skirt if I wanted to be a member. Yeah that's right - I was not supposed to wear pants to church if I wanted to be part of the God Club.

They advised me that I shouldn't attempt to date anyone in the congregation - being a divorced woman, my responsibility was with my ex-husband who had abused and cheated on me. Yeah, that reunion went real well.

I was told by the deacon not to help out anywhere outside the kitchen - 'the military might let you women do that but here, you take this washrag and help out in the kitchen.'

I wasn't allowed to pray out loud, usher, lead study groups...basicly being female makes you second class and daring to be independant and freethinking is a dangerous mix.

Remind me why I care if I offend these people?

[darkmartin82]

ice, are you defending your own view, or those of others.

I belief you do know the difrence between getting offended by offencive behavior, and getting hurt.

So if you are offended by your knowledge of gay people, go live under a rock, exclude yourself from society and by happy. If somebody puts something in your arsh you will feel hurt and know the difrence.

I do hope this will get my point across, since I've come to the conlusion my English is not to blame. Now re-read the rest of the posts and my point should be clear.


*if anyone is offended by this crossness of mine, please accept my apologies*

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by Blushing Heliophobe

I'll just be honest and not bother to tiptoe around the tulips here - yes, it fucking would.

When I first decided that I wanted God in my life and I went into a Baptist church it was the worst mistake I ever made.

They had me cover my tattoos. Wear a skirt if I wanted to be a member. Yeah that's right - I was not supposed to wear pants to church if I wanted to be part of the God Club.

They advised me that I shouldn't attempt to date anyone in the congregation - being a divorced woman, my responsibility was with my ex-husband who had abused and cheated
on me. Yeah, that reunion went real well.

I was told by the deacon not to help out anywhere outside the kitchen - 'the military might let you women do that but here, you take this washrag and help out in the kitchen.'

I wasn't allowed to pray out loud, usher, lead study groups...basicly being female makes you second class and daring to be independant and freethinking is a dangerous mix.

Remind me why I care if I offend these people?

I guess I am glad I'm not one. =)
Then again, you look at their religion, as it is bad, and they look just the same way at you. So, you got rubbed the wrong way by a few people. Place this in your context.

Say a Homophobe came around, and saw two lesbians. He was required by his religion to do whatever dasterdly act God had told them to do, and therefore he went to confront them. The law says he can't say anything, do anything, or even look at them the wrong way, or speak any evil, because it is harassment. The next thing you know, everyone get's screwed.

You can say your opinion against someone, because it would be hatespeech. You can't form your own opinions about religion, because then you either blasphemy your deity, or you disobey the law. Your church can't say, "Go fuck yourself". because law requires you to be subservient, and polite.

It would be the same thing for someone on the opposite side of the spectrum for you.

Originally Posted by darkmartin82

ice, are you defending your own view, or those of others.

I belief you do know the difrence between getting offended by offencive behavior, and getting hurt.

So if you are offended by your knowledge of gay people, go live under a rock, exclude yourself from society and by happy. If somebody puts something in your arsh you will feel hurt and know the difrence.

I do hope this will get my point across, since I've come to the conlusion my English is not to blame. Now re-read the rest of the posts and my point should be clear.

How does it matter who's point it is? It's a debate.

I know the difference between offensive behavior and being hurt. I showed how they are also similiar. I am not offended by Gay people, and I am quite comfortable around them. I am simply saying that what one man views as evil, isn't what everyone views as evil.

[Loy]

Icarian-you say that homosexuality has been basically banned by the desert religions (easier to say than Judea-Christian-islamic), and that makes up most of the world. However, these religions are not the majority religion....in fact, monotheism (the worship of one god) is only practiced by about 35% of the worlds population (at least it was about 9 years ago, last time I looked. However, I have high doubts that it's changed very much since then). So to base your argument of homosexuality being a cross-cultural taboo from the desert-religion standpoint is creating a false positive. First by cretaign the assumption that these religions dominate the world, and secondly by not pointing out the fact that these three religions are outgrowths of each others spiritual base.

As for your assumption of other cultures...let's see

China-accepted (especially now with that whole "child-limit"). China didn't define "homosexual" until the Red Revolution (interesting fact-the concept of a "homosexual" didn't enter our cultural thoughtlines until the turn of the last century, and it was created as a away to describe Oscar Wilde. Before then, "homosexuality" was seen as specific acts). Before that, homosecual acts were not looked down upon.

Japan-accepted. You wanna go into the history of the samurai?

Russia-Fluctuated with whoever the leader at the time was. Most "communist' leaders were against it, but plenty of the tsars allowed it.

We can also get into indiginious tribes from all over the world (South America, North America, Africa, Australia) and see many, many systems that were set up for homosexual acts to be performed, and call me crazy, but I think this points to an acceptence of homosexuality, don't you?

And of course we can go back to the beginnings of western civilization-ancient Greece, where homosexuality was very much an accepted part of life....then again, the Greeks ideal love was paedophilia, so I don't think we should dwell too long on them.

My point-it's not as taboo as you think. Now, you wanna rethink your position on this one?

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Hmm, is there a debate involving Icarian and some extremely skewed views? Where have I seen this before?

Gee, I wonder. Oh, why don't you come out and say it. It was in sexuality. There. Happy?

Originally Posted by Loy

Icarian-you say that homosexuality has been basically banned by the desert religions (easier to say than Judea-Christian-islamic), and that makes up most of the world. However, these religions are not the majority religion....in fact, monotheism (the worship of one god) is only practiced by about 35% of the worlds population (at least it was about 9 years ago, last time I looked. However, I have high doubts that it's changed very much since then). So to base your argument of homosexuality being a cross-cultural taboo from the desert-religion standpoint is creating a false positive. First by cretaign the assumption that these religions dominate the world, and secondly by not pointing out the fact that these three religions are outgrowths of each others spiritual base.

Actually, let's retake a look at that.

Christianity: 2.1 billion
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Christianity: 33%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Showing a dropping trend.
Condemns Homosexuality.

Muslims: 1.3 billion
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Muslims: 19.6%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Showing a growing trend.
Condemns homosexuality.

Judaism: 14 million
Judaism: .2%
Showing a stable trend.
Condemns homosexuality.

Buddhism: 376 million
Buddhism: 6%
Disregards all forms of sexuality.

Chinese traditional religion: 394 Million people
Chinese traditional religion: 6%
Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, all regard it as being negative. While some takes provide that homosexuality is allowed, the general part is that it's not.

Sikhism: 23 Million
Sikhism: .36%
Doesn't strong approve or disapprove.

So, if you add that all up.
It's 4183000000 members of religions that don't either a. Approve of homosexuality, b. Endorse homosexuality c. strongly approve or disapprove, or d. have sex at all.
Right now, there are 6621210039 or so.
For some reason, that tells me the majority frowns down upon it.

Now, if that's not enough to convince you, let's look at whose's been in power of late. Tony Blair, George Bush, Colin Powell, etc, are primarily heterosexual (To my knowledge). Stalin, Hitler, and Eisenhower, along with pretty much all of the presidents, have been heterosexual. Nearly every celebrity has been heterosexual, to my knowledge. I know there have been a few stars here and there, (Elton John, Ellen Degeneres), who have admited they are homosexual, but it seems to me, for the most part, they aren't. Then, after that, we look at people like Martin Luther King, and Ghandi. They were both heterosexual. Bin Laden, Sadam Hussein, and Hamas. Heterosexual. Bill Gates, Donald Trump. Heterosexual. It seems like alot more people are heterosexual and in power, then those over homosexual. Then again, you could apply the same concept to black people. It's still, just another thing.

(P.S. Don't bring up the minority crap about, "They're only X amount of the population". Guess what? When 40% of the countries economy is run by 1% of the economy, it's them who matter on the global scale.)

Originally Posted by Loy

Japan-accepted. You wanna go into the history of the samurai?

Ah yes, the lovely people who killed themselves when their masters died.

Originally Posted by Loy

Russia-Fluctuated with whoever the leader at the time was. Most "communist' leaders were against it, but plenty of the tsars allowed it.

Plenty of Tsars around too, eh?

Originally Posted by Loy

We can also get into indiginious tribes from all over the world (South America, North America, Africa, Australia) and see many, many systems that were set up for homosexual acts to be performed, and call me crazy, but I think this points to an acceptence of homosexuality, don't you?

I hope so, but the facts I see don't tell me so. My guess is it's just less of a hassle to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Loy

And of course we can go back to the beginnings of western civilization-ancient Greece, where homosexuality was very much an accepted part of life....then again, the Greeks ideal love was paedophilia, so I don't think we should dwell too long on them.

They also married their Brothers and Sisters, and murdered their parents.

Once again, I'm not trying to put anyone who is homosexual down. I'm simply stating how I see it.

[Sobeh]

Wow, wouldn't you know it? Someone has actually written about this! Have a look. I found these gems to be particularly enlightening:

"In 244 C.E. (current era), St. Tarcissus, a patron saint for gay Catholics who died at the age of 13 in the arms of a Christian soldier, was canonized."

"On one hand, the Qur’an condemned homosexuality unequivocally. And on the other, Muslim societies showed a great deal of tolerance toward men who loved men. Although Muhammad, writer of The Qur'an, condemned homosexual sex, his version of paradise included 'seductive young boys as well as houris (maidens).' "

"In Asia, women were banned from Japanese Kabuki theaters. Instead, all-male performers took their places and were commonly known to grant sexual favors to male patrons."

Perhaps most significant:

"In general, as gender and sexuality became more scrutinized and European society felt the need to develop ever more rigid categories, homosexuality became more reviled, and gender roles were even more strictly polarized."

In other words, homosexual condemnations came alongside condemnations of sexuality generally, and not specifically because of the type of sexuality experienced. Every culture/religion which you claim condemns homosexuality is also, amazingly, strongly against expressive sexuality of any kind.

So really, it isn't that homosexuality is a world-wide taboo, but rather that sexuality of any kind became a dirty little secret to certain specific cultures.

You make one mistake, and that is to extrapolate what certain specific people must think based upon their religious adherence. That's like saying Catholics in the US don't use birth control because the Pope suggests it's a bad thing, which is definately NOT the case.

Very few religions worldwide have specifically condemned homosexuality. Most religions do not condemn it. While true that the majority of people in the world belong to those first few religions, those who adhere to those religions are not necessarily all on the same page when it comes to these topics, and that is because while these religions may have condemned it, there are a lot of cultures which have not, and when these two are at odds, by and large culture seems to win. American culture has not necessarily condemned it - the jury is still out, but trending towards acceptance. Muslim countries are very open with their acceptance of male love, but again, it is sexuality in general, and not just same-sex sex, which is frowned upon.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

This thread has totally eclipsed the entire reason it exists in the first place.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Hadn't seen whatever it is you're refering to...will check it out.

I'm having to use my Ignore much too often these days. Must not be enough for bored people to do...me personally I get bored, I have sex - not post on random boards just to irritate people. But whatever floats the boat.

[darkmartin82]

Well I'm also, for a part responsible for letting it happen then. My motives where noble, but my wits left me. Besides I don't read every thread. But I'm not going to apologise either, for it where my best intentions.

next post back on topic?

[Icarian Decoding]

Xnuglena, Xnuglena, Xnuglena. Would a troll really hang around this long? Most likely, more then not. I guess making a mistake, isn't in your vocabulary.

Now, let's go kill some birds.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

"In 244 C.E. (current era), St. Tarcissus, a patron saint for gay Catholics who died at the age of 13 in the arms of a Christian soldier, was canonized."

Okay. That's one. One person, and he canonized, most likely for defending people, instead of the alternative of being gay.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

On one hand, the Qur’an condemned homosexuality unequivocally. And on the other, Muslim societies showed a great deal of tolerance toward men who loved men. Although Muhammad, writer of The Qur'an, condemned homosexual sex, his version of paradise included 'seductive young boys as well as houris (maidens).

So, you have seductive young boys, as well as girls. How is this promoting homosexuality? The entire concept of Heaven, or atleast to my understanding of the bible, is that it's perfect. Why wouldn't all of our senses be pleased? Would you rather the religion says that ugly little trolls are going to be present?

Originally Posted by Sobeh

"In Asia, women were banned from Japanese Kabuki theaters. Instead, all-male performers took their places and were commonly known to grant sexual favors to male patrons."

This means that one country, way, way back when, accepted homosexuality in the absence of women.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

"In general, as gender and sexuality became more scrutinized and European society felt the need to develop ever more rigid categories, homosexuality became more reviled, and gender roles were even more strictly polarized."

Which has much of an influence on present day.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

In other words, homosexual condemnations came alongside condemnations of sexuality generally, and not specifically because of the type of sexuality experienced. Every culture/religion which you claim condemns homosexuality is also, amazingly, strongly against expressive sexuality of any kind.

So really, it isn't that homosexuality is a world-wide taboo, but rather that sexuality of any kind became a dirty little secret to certain specific cultures.

Your point being? That's more helping my side of the debate then anything.

So, they condemnd sexuality. Homosexuality comes with it. Therefore, it is condemnation non-the-less.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

You make one mistake, and that is to extrapolate what certain specific people must think based upon their religious adherence. That's like saying Catholics in the US don't use birth control because the Pope suggests it's a bad thing, which is definately NOT the case.

It is not the case, but that's not the same as acceptance from the entire community.

Originally Posted by Sobeh

Very few religions worldwide have specifically condemned homosexuality. Most religions do not condemn it. While true that the majority of people in the world belong to those first few religions, those who adhere to those religions are not necessarily all on the same page when it comes to these topics, and that is because while these religions may have condemned it, there are a lot of cultures which have not, and when these two are at odds, by and large culture seems to win. American culture has not necessarily condemned it - the jury is still out, but trending towards acceptance. Muslim countries are very open with their acceptance of male love, but again, it is sexuality in general, and not just same-sex sex, which is frowned upon.

Using this same arguement, you can argue that every atheist, etc. that doesn't openly condemn or accept homosexuality can be either way. That shoves a ton more people into the category of possible.

The jury may be heading towards acceptance because the law, when looked at from one point of view, says it has to be. It doesn't neccesarily reflect the views of the citizens, as you just proved.

And I already spoke on sexuality.

Originally Posted by Xngulena

...which is why Icarian posts. There's a reason I have him on ignore. He's a troll, as I'm sure you all figured out in Sexuality.

Which I have already explained to you.
I can only give you my word that I am not trolling here, and that I am simply debating from the opposing point of view that I see others taking. If you don't believe me, that's too bad.

[Loy]

Icarius-hold, so first you try to give me statistics on populations that consider themselves believers in a religious sect, THEN you try saying that since they're not in power, we shouldn't even count them in the first place? Nice try, Asurai, but your attempt at weaseling out of the debate whilst making yourself seem on top doesn't fly.

Now, I could point out that there are MANY subsects within any religious thoughtline, but I think Sobeh's already pointed that out. And I hate to point this out to you, but these different subsects disagree on quite a few issues (including, but not only, the place of homos in the eyes of the Lord). Now, if you'd like we could go into the different strands of Catholicism that differ in their opinions about this issue (why Catholic? I grew up one. Went to seminary. It's the area I can speak a bit more knowledgably about, compared to, say, Orthodox Judaism), but I have a feeling you're gonna twist anything I say to mean exactly the opposite of what the point was.

Also, about your deconstruction of my points-even though you threw out some points to make the other cultures seem a bit unsavory, you still have yet to actually debate the original point, which was that you felt these cultures frowned upon homosexuality. I pointed out that that wasn't neccesarilly the case. Now, learn how to fucking debate properly, or shut the fuck up and get out of here.

"How do I construct a valid argument?" you might ask? Well, I'm gonna post up Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Before you post anything you type, I suggest cross-referencing with it, unless you wanna get "bullshit" called upon you over and over again. (Before I forget, it's from CarlSagan.Com. Just in case anybody thinks I'm trying to take credit for it. I'm not. I'm nowhere near as awesome of a human being as Carl was)


The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"