Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Star Wars vs Barbara WaltersFollow

#152 Mar 15 2012 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,119 posts
Almalieque wrote:
...there is no law preventing homosexuals from marrying.


I would like to point out that there are like 8 countries where a same sex relationship is punishable by death, I think that would constitute a law saying marriage would be illegal. This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, carry on.
#153 Mar 15 2012 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
I think Alma broke Ari.
#154 Mar 15 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I feel your frustration Ari.

What I find most irksome are that is that the ultimate conclusion to the issue of gay marriage is so disdainful.

Simply, federal legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. The gay marriage opposition believe they're fighting over whether gay marriage will become legal or not. That is not the case. It has always been a question of when not if. Contrary to initial assumption, that vexes me more not less. Every thing opponents of gay marriage achieve is a stall. It's a lost cause, and all they can do is bring down others with them. Ultimately they will lose, but how much unnecessary suffering will be caused before then?

And long after the issue has been settled in the public's mind, conservatives will claimed they supported it all along. They had never been opposed to emancipation. They had never been opposed to women's suffrage. They had never been for prohibition. They had never been against racial integration. And they had never wanted to prevent gay marriage.

Fixing widespread social iniquities is a monumental task, and yet more trying still is carry the lessons over to the next sin at hand.

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 10:51pm by Allegory
#155 Mar 15 2012 at 10:41 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I don't know why anyone would put any stock in his claim. It shouldn't be any surprise he turned out to be a lying little *****, after all.
Oh, you must have read that in the same AR that states your other lie? You have some nerve as a spineless p*ssy that can't even admit to being wrong to something completely irrelevant to us to call someone else a LIAR! Really? At this point, you have no weight in any discussion over veracious actions.
Smiley: lol
Does it hurt so much to be called out on a lie?


I honestly couldn't tell you.

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 6:37pm by Almalieque


I have nothing but testimonies. If you believe otherwise, please counter it.


How can you testify to something that hasn't happened? Please go on Mr. Future teller you.
#156 Mar 15 2012 at 10:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nope.. I used the wrong word. I meant no deception of any kind, I was just using casual talk and wasn't trying to base an argument on the accuracy of one word.

However, when others purposely use incorrect words with full intent of making their argument have a different effect, it's "ok".

I'm just asking for consistency.


Perhaps to get consistency, you have to give it? If you want to nitpick others for their casualness on the forums (i.e. saying something general to the topic at hand, yet you insist on spreading it over several topics because, when taken completely literally, it could be construed that way even if that was obviously not what was intended), then you have no right to ***** when someone else does the same to you.



Uh no, because I admitted several times already that I used the WRONG WORD. I WAS WRONG and I adjusted to use a more accurate word. I didn't continue to use the same word to only say "you know what I mean".

On the other hand, you all continue to purposely use the wrong word in support of your argument and then get upset when people call you out on it. There's a complete difference between the two. I admitted to my error and corrected the word, others do not.

Belkira wrote:
Also, for the record, this whole forum is casual, even when two people are "debating" or "arguing" over some particular topic.


Please explain further. How does the forum of which a debate takes place make it any more or less of a debate?
#157 Mar 15 2012 at 10:57 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The fact that you're CHALLENGING me to FIND a quote only supports the notion that you remained SILENT, which proves my point that you're inconsistent. Thank you for admitting to being a hypocrite. Smiley: nod


Since you're concerned with saving time, why don't you state whether you agree or not that banning same sex marriage takes the rights of marriage away from homosexuals. Or do you believe that their right has never changed, but they are at a disadvantage due to a restriction that equally applies to everyone?

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 6:50pm by Almalieque
First off, learn to @#%^ing quote.
Second, you have to make a point before you can prove it. And it's not inconsistency. I've consistently wanted you gone from here and that's the sole reason I pounced on this.
Third, no rights are denied, however, they are not disadvantaged equally like everyone else, because everyone else isn't disadvantaged.


It is inconsistent because you don't call out the numerous and numerous of threads of people claiming that homosexuals have their "rights" taken away. However, the second when you THINK that I might be equally using a wrong incorrectly, you give the "words have meaning speech". That is called "inconsistent".

Of course they are not disadvantaged equally, that's why I said there's a difference between fighting for equality vs fighting for fairness. It's equal across the board, but because the rules don't take the differences of people in consideration, it's not fair.

So, I will make sure that I source you as agreeing with me when I counter the stupid belief that homosexuals rights are violated in banning SSM.
#158 Mar 15 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Why make one post when you can make 3?
#159 Mar 16 2012 at 1:09 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Also, for the record, this whole forum is casual, even when two people are "debating" or "arguing" over some particular topic.


Please explain further. How does the forum of which a debate takes place make it any more or less of a debate?


I never said it was more or less of a debate. I said that it was always casual conversation. Banter between friends or acquaintances. This isn't important, it doesn't decide outcomes.
#160 Mar 16 2012 at 1:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Oh. That's why this thread is still going.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#161 Mar 16 2012 at 4:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Almalieque wrote:
blah blah blah.
Why aren't you gone yet? Are you admitting to being a liar?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#162 Mar 16 2012 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
blah blah blah.
Why aren't you gone yet? Are you admitting to being a liar?
He doesn't need to admit it, his actions are overwhelming evidence.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#163 Mar 16 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Oh. That's why this thread is still going.

Can't you mute Alma for outrageous triple-post farming strategies or something?
#164 Mar 16 2012 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I don't know why anyone would put any stock in his claim. It shouldn't be any surprise he turned out to be a lying little *****, after all.
Oh, you must have read that in the same AR that states your other lie? You have some nerve as a spineless p*ssy that can't even admit to being wrong to something completely irrelevant to us to call someone else a LIAR! Really? At this point, you have no weight in any discussion over veracious actions.
Smiley: lol
Does it hurt so much to be called out on a lie?


I honestly couldn't tell you.

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 6:37pm by Almalieque


I have nothing but testimonies. If you believe otherwise, please counter it.


How can you testify to something that hasn't happened? Please go on Mr. Future teller you.



Smiley: lol Don't blame your inability to accept the truth on me Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Mar 16 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Majivo wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Oh. That's why this thread is still going.

Can't you mute Alma for outrageous triple-post farming strategies or something?
One of the Admins used to do that. Triple post too often and he'd temp mute you. I'll take a couple days reprieve as a start.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#166 Mar 16 2012 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Quote:
Or do you believe that their right has never changed, but they are at a disadvantage due to a restriction that equally applies to everyone?

Everyone else gets to marry people that
a) they are sexually compatible with and could sexually desire and in fact in the vast majority of cases DO sexually desire, and have a fulfilling sexual relationship with.
b) they are romantically compatible with, in the way that they CAN fall IN love with (not just love greatly as a friend) and in fact in the vast majority of cases ARE romantically in love with, and have a fulfilling romantic companionship with.

I CAN"T @#%^ING FATHOM WHY I EVEN WROTE THAT OUT FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT THAT HOMOSEXUALS ALREADY HAVING THE RIGHT TO MARRY PEOPLE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, WHILE NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO MARRY PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX, MEANS THAT THEIR RIGHT TO MARRY IS INTACT: IS SO FATUOUS, TRANSPARENTLY RIDICULOUS, MORALLY BANKRUPT AND FALSE THAT I DON'T SEE WHY YOU CAN ADVANCE IT WITHOUT MAKING YOURSELF A LYING HYPOCRITICAL HATEFUL BIGOT THAT IS SMUGLY BARELY COVERING UP HIS BIGOTRY IN A NANO-THIN VENEER OF SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY. YOUR ADVOCACY OF THIS ARGUMENT MAKES ME SICK, AND INFURIATED THAT I SHARE A CULTURE WITH YOU. IF YOU SINCERELY SWEAR-ON-YOUR-SACRED-OBJECT-OF-CHOICE BELIEVE IN THAT ARGUMENT YOU PUT FORWARD, YOU ARE SO ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL THAT YOUR INFLUENCE ON SOCIETY BY ADVOCACY OF YOUR IDEAS AND CONCLUSIONS MAKES ME SCARED FOR OUR CULTURE AND INFURIATED THAT OUR CULTURE COULD PRODUCE SO DEFICIENT A HUMAN BEING.

JUST @#%^ THE HELL OFF TO THE INFINITESIMALLY SMALL; LOVELESS; LIGHTLESS; EMPATHETICALLY, INTELLECTUALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, BANKRUPT QUAGMIRE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF TO INFLICT YOUR DERANGED, DANGEROUS AND SOCIALLY POISONOUS SELF UPON US. GO PERMANENTLY HANG WITH THE DELUSIONAL, SMUG, UNJUSTIFIABLY SELF-SATISFIED CROWD THAT AGREES WITH YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU POISONING THE MEMESPHERE I INHABIT.

Revolting, disgusting little man.
I <3 you Ari.
#167Almalieque, Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 1:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This is your problem. This isn't my "argument" for anything. This is my counter to an inaccurate and misleading comment. Let's say that I were to make the stupid argument that women should be able to legally have abortions because abortions increase brain cells, physical fitness and cure cancer. If you were to counter to say that abortions do not increase brain cells, physical fitness and/or cure cancer, that doesn't make you AGAINST abortion. That makes you against a stupid argument. That's exactly what I'm doing. My comment is irrelevant to my opinion of SSM, but merely countering an equally stupid argument that "rights' are taken away.
#168 Mar 16 2012 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The door's over there --------->

Use it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#169Almalieque, Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above... You're part of the problem..
#170 Mar 16 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
So sticking with being a liar eh? Fine, if that's how you want to roll.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#171 Mar 16 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
This seems as good a point of any to rant about posting etiquette, because I'm seeing so many grievances in this thread.

1. No ridiculously unnecessary quote pyramids. No one needs to see the last 8 replies you've been making to each other. No one needs to scroll past a brick wall every time you feel the new to throw out another tired one liner. No one needs you mucking up the search feature so that they see 8 instances of the same comment. Stop being lazy and edit it down to the specific comment you're responding to, more if and only if necessary.

2. On a similar note. If you're responding to the entirety of another user's 3-4 paragraph post, you don't need to quote the entire thing. Quote a snippet and merely state you're responding tot he entirety, create a hyperlink instead, or even write post #205 for all I care.

3. Stop doing three times as poorly what you could have done once well. You are the bane of mobile browsers. N times as much default crap from your profile to load and N-1 less posts per page to view.

Edit 4. Don't fail link, just don't.

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 5:43pm by Allegory
#172 Mar 16 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,119 posts
Allegory wrote:
This seems as good a point of any to rant about posting etiquette...

1. No ridiculously unnecessary quote pyramids. ...

2. On a similar note. If you're responding to the entirety of another user's 3-4 paragraph post, you don't need to quote the entire thing....

3. Stop doing three times as poorly what you could have done once well. ...

^this....
#173 Mar 16 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
I'm a triple quadrupal poster. Smiley: glare

I just find more to reply to as I a) think about things or b) read further down the thread while it's not moving or c) after I've googled stuff. If it's been a while between posting after myself, I think readers would actually prefer reading a triple post than me going back and editing an hour old post to make it three posts long. I'm sure that would move the original post into tl:dr territory. I know I'd find gbaji's posts easier to read if he'd break them up more (and use less space bars).
#174 Mar 16 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Allegory wrote:
Why make one post when you can make 3?


When I post during short periods, depending on how long I post, I may run out of time. Given the history of people complaining about the lengths of my posts and people responding without actually reading them, I decided it was a win/win situation just to keep it short. I realized that people actually read my posts when I post shorter.
.


Constant strings of multiple close together posts is considered spamming under the forum rules Paragraph 7, section A3. Please consider this your official warning notification on the matter.

Administrator Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#175 Mar 16 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
/slink
#176 Mar 16 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm a triple quadrupal poster. Smiley: glare

I just find more to reply to as I a) think about things or b) read further down the thread while it's not moving or c) after I've googled stuff. If it's been a while between posting after myself, I think readers would actually prefer reading a triple post than me going back and editing an hour old post to make it three posts long. I'm sure that would move the original post into tl:dr territory. I know I'd find gbaji's posts easier to read if he'd break them up more (and use less space bars).


It's so much easier to ignore one post instead of four or five in a row.

Not that I'd ever ignore an Ari post, of course.... Smiley: flowers
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 185 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (185)