Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SERVEFollow

#52 Apr 15 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't want to live in a country where I can't peaceably assemble at a funeral of a serviceman. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people think it's ok to peaceably assemble at a funeral of anyone. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people go out of their way to argue based solely on a their chosen group's theoretical philosophy instead of their own. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people make arguments about people going out of their way to argue based on a particular group's theoretical philosophy, when that isn't the case. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country without My Little Pony. That's ridiculous.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Apr 15 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
I live in the country. By the beach.

No ponies tho'.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#54 Apr 15 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
My impression of the WBC is that they don't behave in a disruptive manner, other than holding signs that express extremely ugly opinions.

Hate to break up a good argument, but they have a right to do that, and no exception should be made to undermine that right.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#55 Apr 15 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
My impression of the WBC is that they don't behave in a disruptive manner, other than holding signs that express extremely ugly opinions.

Hate to break up a good argument, but they have a right to do that, and no exception should be made to undermine that right.


That was my thought, as well, but I wasn't sure. Holding signs doesn't disrupt much... Just makes people uncomfortable.

#56 Apr 15 2011 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Here's the thing about polls and statistics...


In other words, you know I'm right, but you've got an emotional argument to pretend that the numbers don't really say what you want them to say. A page right out of gbaji's book.

Talking to you is pointless. You ignore blatant evidence and make shit up. That, coupled with assumptions on what people really meant when answering a poll, is all you'll use to make up your mind. Heaven forbid you be shown actual numbers, because they don't matter.
#57 Apr 16 2011 at 3:33 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
My impression of the WBC is that they don't behave in a disruptive manner, other than holding signs that express extremely ugly opinions.

Hate to break up a good argument, but they have a right to do that, and no exception should be made to undermine that right.




Being there is disruptive, that's why they are there in the first place. Once again, why not blog about their cause or get a news interview or article? They aren't because their goal is to disrupt the funeral. No one is saying that they can't hold up signs, just not at the funeral. Go do it down the road. The people at the funeral also have a right to have a funeral without people disrupting it. If you can't see how that's a fair solution, then you have a personal motive.

I would wager that most of you all don't agree with that action, but are afraid that banning that will somehow affect other forms of freedom of speech. This goes back to my argument about SSM. If you are able to provide an exclusive self-sustaining argument for that action (which was done), then you can make the change while not affecting other forms of freedom of speech. Once again, you're pretending that we don't live in a world where we have restrictions on our speech, because we do. Our laws do not support us to be able say or do whatever we want, only within some form of reason.

Belkira wrote:
In other words, you know I'm right, but you've got an emotional argument to pretend that the numbers don't really say what you want them to say. A page right out of gbaji's book.

Talking to you is pointless. You ignore blatant evidence and make sh*t up. That, coupled with assumptions on what people really meant when answering a poll, is all you'll use to make up your mind. Heaven forbid you be shown actual numbers, because they don't matter.


It's very ironic and hilarious that you have the audacity to call anyone "emotional", you are by far the most emotional argumentative person on this forum. Like I said, I took the DoD survey and you're right, I don't know what people really meant, but guess what that means, neither do you. If you have a poorly worded option to include "positive, neutral or mixed", how can you claim anything?

Nice try, but I've been arguing against Internet sources for months now. First off, Most people don't search unbiasedly. Instead of searching "Same sex marriage U.S opinion", you would search "Majority of Americans Favor/support Same sex marriage", so of course you will receive sources supporting your claim. That doesn't make it the most accurate. All I can do is just google the opposite.

Secondly, examine the poll itself, who all was included? Did it include "majority of the U.S"? I doubt it as I don't recall ever participating in any such poll. That's why I said to look it at from a LOGICAL stand point.

Answer me this, do you or do you not agree with the logic that I presented about Republicans and Democrats? If not, tell me EXACTLY which part don't you believe in? Do you not believe that country is roughly divided into two parties? Do you not believe that MOST Republicans are AGAINST SSM? Do you not believe that not all Democrats support SSM? Do you not believe that there are some Democrats who only politically support SSM? Tell me which ones you disagree with?

It appears to me that you are the one ignoring the facts to stick to some random statistic based on emotion. Since you want numbers though, let me source you why your source is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States wrote:
Public opinion on same-sex marriage in the United States has been tracked by polling data for well over a decade. As of the year 2010, polls provide differing answers to the question of how the majority of Americans view same-sex marriage, although it is clear that support for same-sex marriage has increased over the past decade.

When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, although other U.S. polls taken that year did not reflect majority support.[1]

Opposition to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest.[2][3] Support for same-sex marriage correlates with lack of religious affiliation, young age,[4] Democratic Party affiliation, and residence in the Northeast and on the West Coast.[3]

.......

POLLS in 2011

Public support for gay marriage continues to edge upward. A national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted 2/22/11 – 3/1/11 among 1,504 adults, finds about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In a Pew Research survey conducted in 2009, just 37% backed same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed. Opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor. As has been the case since 1996, there is a wide partisan division on the question of same-sex marriage. Currently 57% of Democrats favor making it legal, while only 23% of Republicans agree. Independents (at 51% in favor) are more similar to Democrats than to Republicans, in part because 46% of Republican-leaning independents are supportive of same-sex marriage, along with 58% of independents who lean Democratic.[7]

A March 2011 telephone-survey of 1005 adults by ABC News and the Washington Post found that, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage. 53 percent of those polled supported same-sex marriage while 44 percent remained opposed; support was highest among younger Americans and lower among conservatives, Republicans, and evangelicals. Pollster Gary Langster describes this as a "milestone result that caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes". From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. [8][9]

In March 2011, Democracy Corps conducted a survey of 1,000 likely 2012 election voters in 50 congressional districts considered political battlegrounds. It asked respondents to rate their feelings on the gay marriage issue on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being "very warm" or favorable feelings, and 0 being "very cold" or unfavorable feelings. 42% were on the "cool" or unfavorable side, and 35% were on the "warm" or favorable side.



1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation. There are high schools with more people than that.

Are you ready to do this from a logical point now and not some random poll?

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:09pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:11pm by Almalieque
#58 Apr 16 2011 at 5:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't want to live in a country where I can't peaceably assemble at a funeral of a serviceman. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people think it's ok to peaceably assemble at a funeral of anyone. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people go out of their way to argue based solely on a their chosen group's theoretical philosophy instead of their own. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people make arguments about people going out of their way to argue based on a particular group's theoretical philosophy, when that isn't the case. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country without My Little Pony. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country that puts retards like Alma in positions of authority. Luckily, I don't.
____________________________
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

#59 Apr 16 2011 at 6:07 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't want to live in a country where I can't peaceably assemble at a funeral of a serviceman. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people think it's ok to peaceably assemble at a funeral of anyone. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people go out of their way to argue based solely on a their chosen group's theoretical philosophy instead of their own. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people make arguments about people going out of their way to argue based on a particular group's theoretical philosophy, when that isn't the case. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country without My Little Pony. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country that puts retards like Alma in positions of authority. Luckily, I don't.


Aren't you Canadian? I believe your country equally falls under our jurisdiction.
#60 Apr 16 2011 at 7:08 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't want to live in a country where I can't peaceably assemble at a funeral of a serviceman. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people think it's ok to peaceably assemble at a funeral of anyone. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people go out of their way to argue based solely on a their chosen group's theoretical philosophy instead of their own. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country where people make arguments about people going out of their way to argue based on a particular group's theoretical philosophy, when that isn't the case. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country without My Little Pony. That's ridiculous.
I don't want to live in a country that puts retards like Alma in positions of authority. Luckily, I don't.

ditto

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 9:08am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#61 Apr 16 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Being there is disruptive, that's why they are there in the first place. Once again, why not blog about their cause or get a news interview or article? They aren't because their goal is to disrupt the funeral. No one is saying that they can't hold up signs, just not at the funeral. Go do it down the road. The people at the funeral also have a right to have a funeral without people disrupting it. If you can't see how that's a fair solution, then you have a personal motive.


Having a placid funeral service is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

This is a stupid conversation, and I'm done.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#62 Apr 16 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation.
Actually, they do. Not remotely shocked that you completely fail to understand statistical random sample sizes.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#63 Apr 16 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Being there is disruptive, that's why they are there in the first place. Once again, why not blog about their cause or get a news interview or article? They aren't because their goal is to disrupt the funeral. No one is saying that they can't hold up signs, just not at the funeral. Go do it down the road. The people at the funeral also have a right to have a funeral without people disrupting it. If you can't see how that's a fair solution, then you have a personal motive.


Having a placid funeral service is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.



Having freedom of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right, am I right?

For you to say that "peaceful" isn't guaranteed under the constitution during the expression of sorrow during a funeral is no different than me saying "distance" isn't guaranteed under the constitution during the expression of douchbaggery at a funeral.

Either you support an all "inclusive" open form of freedom of expression or you support the discomfort of some as a sacrifice to please others. You can't pick and choose whenever it benefits your argument.


Samira wrote:

This is a stupid conversation, and I'm done.


You're correct. It was stupid for you to even bother to argue against the evident. You were "done" before you even started.
#64 Apr 16 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation.
Actually, they do. Not remotely shocked that you completely fail to understand statistical random sample sizes.



Do you even read?

Not remotely shocked that you completely fail to understand an argument and use yet again the dumbest interpretation as a counter.
#65 Apr 16 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Being there is disruptive, that's why they are there in the first place. Once again, why not blog about their cause or get a news interview or article? They aren't because their goal is to disrupt the funeral. No one is saying that they can't hold up signs, just not at the funeral. Go do it down the road. The people at the funeral also have a right to have a funeral without people disrupting it. If you can't see how that's a fair solution, then you have a personal motive.


Having a placid funeral service is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

This is a stupid conversation, and I'm done.



It's certainly not a constitutionally guaranteed right, but why should that stand in the way of a beneficial policy? As I said before, I don't see any risk of negative side-effects of such a law. Obviously, we already have precedent for restricting freedom of speech. We shouldn't always be hamstrung by the constitution.
#66 Apr 16 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aren't you Canadian? I believe your country equally falls under our jurisdiction.
The only country falling under US jurisdiction is the US. You guys just seem to think you're the world police. But that's what happens when retards such as yourself are given the authority to make decisions.
____________________________
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

#67 Apr 16 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
In other words, you know I'm right, but you've got an emotional argument to pretend that the numbers don't really say what you want them to say. A page right out of gbaji's book.

Talking to you is pointless. You ignore blatant evidence and make sh*t up. That, coupled with assumptions on what people really meant when answering a poll, is all you'll use to make up your mind. Heaven forbid you be shown actual numbers, because they don't matter.


It's very ironic and hilarious that you have the audacity to call anyone "emotional", you are by far the most emotional argumentative person on this forum. Like I said, I took the DoD survey and you're right, I don't know what people really meant, but guess what that means, neither do you. If you have a poorly worded option to include "positive, neutral or mixed", how can you claim anything?

Nice try, but I've been arguing against Internet sources for months now. First off, Most people don't search unbiasedly. Instead of searching "Same sex marriage U.S opinion", you would search "Majority of Americans Favor/support Same sex marriage", so of course you will receive sources supporting your claim. That doesn't make it the most accurate. All I can do is just google the opposite.

Secondly, examine the poll itself, who all was included? Did it include "majority of the U.S"? I doubt it as I don't recall ever participating in any such poll. That's why I said to look it at from a LOGICAL stand point.

Answer me this, do you or do you not agree with the logic that I presented about Republicans and Democrats? If not, tell me EXACTLY which part don't you believe in? Do you not believe that country is roughly divided into two parties? Do you not believe that MOST Republicans are AGAINST SSM? Do you not believe that not all Democrats support SSM? Do you not believe that there are some Democrats who only politically support SSM? Tell me which ones you disagree with?

It appears to me that you are the one ignoring the facts to stick to some random statistic based on emotion. Since you want numbers though, let me source you why your source is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States wrote:
Public opinion on same-sex marriage in the United States has been tracked by polling data for well over a decade. As of the year 2010, polls provide differing answers to the question of how the majority of Americans view same-sex marriage, although it is clear that support for same-sex marriage has increased over the past decade.

When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, although other U.S. polls taken that year did not reflect majority support.[1]

Opposition to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest.[2][3] Support for same-sex marriage correlates with lack of religious affiliation, young age,[4] Democratic Party affiliation, and residence in the Northeast and on the West Coast.[3]

.......

POLLS in 2011

Public support for gay marriage continues to edge upward. A national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted 2/22/11 – 3/1/11 among 1,504 adults, finds about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In a Pew Research survey conducted in 2009, just 37% backed same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed. Opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor. As has been the case since 1996, there is a wide partisan division on the question of same-sex marriage. Currently 57% of Democrats favor making it legal, while only 23% of Republicans agree. Independents (at 51% in favor) are more similar to Democrats than to Republicans, in part because 46% of Republican-leaning independents are supportive of same-sex marriage, along with 58% of independents who lean Democratic.[7]

A March 2011 telephone-survey of 1005 adults by ABC News and the Washington Post found that, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage. 53 percent of those polled supported same-sex marriage while 44 percent remained opposed; support was highest among younger Americans and lower among conservatives, Republicans, and evangelicals. Pollster Gary Langster describes this as a "milestone result that caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes". From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. [8][9]

In March 2011, Democracy Corps conducted a survey of 1,000 likely 2012 election voters in 50 congressional districts considered political battlegrounds. It asked respondents to rate their feelings on the gay marriage issue on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being "very warm" or favorable feelings, and 0 being "very cold" or unfavorable feelings. 42% were on the "cool" or unfavorable side, and 35% were on the "warm" or favorable side.



1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation. There are high schools with more people than that.

Are you ready to do this from a logical point now and not some random poll?

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:09pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:11pm by Almalieque


lol

You're like the ******* child of gbaji and Varus. It's hilarious.

And more than a little scary.
#68 Apr 16 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
As an American citizen, I support gay marriage.
As a US Army veteran, I support gay marriage.
As a Christian, I support gay marriage.
As a heterosexual, I support gay marriage.
As a tax payer, I support gay marriage.

47 years after the Civil Rights Act and we are still discriminating against our own citizens. Oh well, at least 10% of states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and D.C. are NOT asshats.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#69 Apr 16 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Aren't you Canadian? I believe your country equally falls under our jurisdiction.
The only country falling under US jurisdiction is the US. You guys just seem to think you're the world police. But that's what happens when retards such as yourself are given the authority to make decisions.


Not sure how you read my post, being that you're "ignoring me", but if I were you, I would silence such nonsense, before we invade Canada. This ****** has that POWA! Respect my Authortay!! Or become part of the "Axis of Evil"....Mwahahaha!

Belkira wrote:
lol

You're like the ******* child of gbaji and Varus. It's hilarious.

And more than a little scary.


So, basically you have nothing. Well, as long as you realized that you were wrong it's ok. You don't have to actually admit to it. I think that was a new record for us! ;)

Alitardif wrote:
As an American citizen, I support gay marriage.
As a US Army veteran, I support gay marriage.
As a Christian, I support gay marriage.
As a heterosexual, I support gay marriage.
As a tax payer, I support gay marriage.

47 years after the Civil Rights Act and we are still discriminating against our own citizens. Oh well, at least 10% of states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and D.C. are NOT asshats.


/sigh...

We've been over this. The U.S, along with every other country in the world, discriminates and it is literally impossible not to do so in some form or fashion. 47 years after the Civil Rights Act, people have realized that it isn't about purely discriminating, but about the justification for doing so. That's why we have the court systems with everyone having the right to a free trial.
#70 Apr 16 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Not sure how you read my post, being that you're "ignoring me"
I've explained this to you before. I can still see the about 30-40 characters from what you type. So if you want a response, type something that might entice me during those first 30 or so characters
____________________________
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

#71 Apr 16 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Not sure how you read my post, being that you're "ignoring me"
I've explained this to you before. I can still see the about 30-40 characters from what you type. So if you want a response, type something that might entice me during those first 30 or so characters


And I've already explained this also. There's no point in pretending to "ignore" me if you will constantly reply to whatever I say. Do us both a favor and do what you claim you are doing, 30 words or not.
#72 Apr 16 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:


/sigh...

We've been over this. The U.S, along with every other country in the world, discriminates and it is literally impossible not to do so in some form or fashion. 47 years after the Civil Rights Act, people have realized that it isn't about purely discriminating, but about the justification for doing so. That's why we have the court systems with everyone having the right to a free trial.


So discrimination is ok because it exists?

What is the justification again?

Edit: I called you stupid, I erased that part as I don't really think flaming you is necessary.



Edited, Apr 16th 2011 4:32pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#73 Apr 16 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
So discrimination is ok because it exists?


No, discrimination is ok, because it's part of life and is literally impossible not to be a part of it. You discriminate against the people you are around all of the time. It's not the simple fact of the discrimination, but the justification for doing so.

Ailitardif wrote:
What is the justification again?


I'm not sure if we want to turn this into another SSM thread. I'm sure someone with premium can link you to a thread of me explaining it.

Ailitardif wrote:

Edit: I called you stupid, I erased that part as I don't really think flaming you is necessary.


Don't worry, that's the norm here. You disagree with someone, then you're automatically labeled as stupid, idiotic, etc. with nothing to back it up other than "You don't agree with me". Then that is often followed with flawed logic on how certain people aren't labeled as such, so therefore it must be true for you, even though nothing additional has yet been provided.
#74 Apr 16 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Clearly, this ignoring thing is really bothering you. You can't stop bringing it up.
____________________________
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

#75 Apr 16 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Clearly, this ignoring thing is really bothering you. You can't stop bringing it up.


On the contrary, I'm just pointing out how much of a failure you are at trolling. As much as I type/talk, why would I want anyone to actually STOP debating me? Especially given the fact that I love to argue. Nice try though. I see what you did there, tried to turn the obvious into a trolling tactic. I'm not flawless. Keep at it, you'll get me with time.
#76 Apr 16 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
So discrimination is ok because it exists?


No, discrimination is ok, because it's part of life and is literally impossible not to be a part of it. You discriminate against the people you are around all of the time. It's not the simple fact of the discrimination, but the justification for doing so.

Ailitardif wrote:
What is the justification again?


I'm not sure if we want to turn this into another SSM thread. I'm sure someone with premium can link you to a thread of me explaining it.

Ailitardif wrote:

Edit: I called you stupid, I erased that part as I don't really think flaming you is necessary.


Don't worry, that's the norm here. You disagree with someone, then you're automatically labeled as stupid, idiotic, etc. with nothing to back it up other than "You don't agree with me". Then that is often followed with flawed logic on how certain people aren't labeled as such, so therefore it must be true for you, even though nothing additional has yet been provided.


It doesn't really matter what you or I believe. Here's how I predict that gay marriage will play out:

Gay marriage will eventually be legal, history will look back on us and wonder what the hell took us so long.

It's fun to look back at the original post and think how the hell we got here from there.



Edited, Apr 16th 2011 5:12pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 229 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (229)