Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#52 Feb 22 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Jophiel wrote:
save myself the hassle of participating


But it is much more fun for everyone else if you do! You worm the best lines out of him. Smiley: lol
#53 Feb 22 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too.
It's a pretty nifty loophole. You can say we shouldn't allow it because it's a loss of rights to people who don't want it but still have to pay for it. At the same time, if you suggest removing it all together it's a loss of rights to the people that already benefit from it and we just can't do that.

Circular reasoning is fun, isn't it? Just goes around and around and around and around....
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#54gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? That's some muddled thinking, right there. It's like you're just flinging buzzwords around without any thought behind anything. I believe that people (and corporations) should pay as little tax as possible. I accept, however, that some things are worth paying tax dollars for (for a variety of reasons). This means that I want to limit those things as much as possible so as to limit the amount of tax dollars required to pay for them as much as possible. Following me so far?
#55gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're close, but missing a key point: There is no loss of rights to the people who already benefit from it, if we remove those benefits. I keep saying this, but it's like it doesn't sink in. Those people have no right to get those benefits. We don't give them the benefits because we believe they have a right to receive them. That's the wrong way to view the issue. No one has a right to receive any benefits from the government. Ever.
#56 Feb 22 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,900 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're close, but missing a key point:
That missing key point being I'm not going to waste time on a circular argument with you tonight. So take it however you want.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'll take it as meaning that you don't know what a circular argument is.
#58 Feb 22 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,900 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're close, but missing a key point:
That missing key point being I'm not going to waste time on a circular argument with you tonight. So take it however you want.
I'll take it as meaning that you don't know what a circular argument is.
If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Feb 22 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#60 Feb 22 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,900 posts
Some might say he's guilty of love in the first degree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Feb 22 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
He isn't a thoughtless twink, he's just drawn that way.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#62 Feb 22 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because I understand the reasons why my tax dollars are used to provide benefits to heterosexual couples who choose to marry and I accept that those reasons are worth the infringement of my rights. I do not believe the same applies to *** couples who choose to marry, thus I oppose expanding those benefits to include them.


So, when people made this argument 50 years ago about interracial marriage, that was cool. Right?

I mean, because you do understand it's exactly the same non-argument, right? Oh, no, of course you don't!

What, explicitly can a heterosexual couple do which a homosexual couple can not? I can't think of a single thing which would justify your position. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to say "procreate".

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 8:10pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#63gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being ***. I'm sure all the *** rights groups will leap to his defense any day now. Because apparently, *** rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...
#64 Feb 22 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.


So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being ***. I'm sure all the *** rights groups will leap to his defense any day now. Because apparently, *** rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...


I thought he was being attacked because of his hypocrisy.
#65gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?
#66gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What hypocrisy? I saw someone assume that since he's a republican he must be anti-***, but isn't that circular? Does a *** man have a right to choose to be a republican if he wants? You seem to suggest that he does not. Which is an interesting stance to take IMO.
#67 Feb 22 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.

So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being ***.

I thought he was being attacked for allegedly harassing and threatening his ex-lover. It's not as though he just announced out of the blue that he was *** and everyone gasped and started in on him.

But if you guys didn't have your cross to climb up on every time something comes up, what ever would you have left?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Feb 22 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?

And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that *** couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?

What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?


gbaji wrote:
That's why *I* allow myself to pay more taxes to provide those benefits. You're free to disagree, but given that it's my rights being infringed, I get to decide why I'm ok with allowing it, not you.


Now, can you give me an argument as to why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to *** couples, like I asked? Or are you going to fall back on platitudes and claims of rights and other emotional appeals?

Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes. See how that works out for you. When they ask you why, say it's because you don't agree with the government's social programmes.

I bet you whatever you like it doesn't fly, and the government take those taxes regardless.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#69 Feb 22 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because apparently, *** rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...
Of course. Your political affiliation is a disease. Your political affiliation is something you chose to do because you're sick. I'm going to pray for you to change your political affiliation. Quite frankly, it's an abomination and I know you're going to **** for it.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#70 Feb 22 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.

The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count. You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them. The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 7:36pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#71 Feb 22 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.

The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count. You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them. The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 7:36pm by Xsarus

Of course they're not. Unless gbaji thinks that heterosexual couples which can't have children shouldn't get the same benefits. Or the ones which adopt shouldn't. Gays can, and do, adopt children. Quite successfully, actually.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#72 Feb 22 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
What hypocrisy? I saw someone assume that since he's a republican he must be anti-***, but isn't that circular? Does a *** man have a right to choose to be a republican if he wants? You seem to suggest that he does not. Which is an interesting stance to take IMO.


Interesting case indeed, but not the one I am making. Simply being republican is not the hypocrisy. I have friends who are *** republicans - one works on the hill for a republican representative. But my friend never sat by quietly eating up the support of anti-*** agenda politicians. Babeu is a hypocrite because he sat there saying nothing while being supported by people that openly spoke the opposite of what he believed. Now that he is outed? Oh, look, he is for marriage equality. He supported the repeal of DADT. Huh, now why didn't he say that before, I wonder?



Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 9:24pm by Dozer
#73gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 9:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This would be a **** of a lot more believable if you hadn't jumped at the first opportunity to report to us all that there was a Republican out there somewhere who was ***. Seriously Joph?
#74 Feb 22 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?

And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that *** couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?


If they marry, sure. There's more than one criteria here.

Quote:
What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?


Really? Do I actually have to give the exact same answers I've given before (to you at least once that I can recall)? Why pretend that you've forgotten the answers? I haven't changed my position, nor my reasoning for it. Sigh...

The objective isn't to reward people for having children. People will do that all on their own without us providing an incentive. The objective is to reward the set of couples who might produce children together for marrying (preferably *before* having children). That way, if/when they do produce children it'll be while bound to a marriage contract and in an environment most likely to result in those children being contributing members of society rather than burdens on it. Obviously, not every couple consisting of a man and a woman will produce children together. However, we can say with certainty that every couple not consisting of a man and a woman will *never* produce children together. Not as a natural consequence of being a couple.

You did learn how babies were made, right? No amount of two people of the same *** bumping uglies will result in pregnancy. Ergo, there is no reason to create an incentive for same *** couples to get married. They're free to do so on their own if they wish, but the state has no interest in the matter at all.


Quote:
Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes.


Um... I was responding to a hypothetical which asked why I don't oppose providing those benefits for heterosexual couples. The whole train of thought assumes that my support or opposition has some meaning. I'm ok with my tax dollars being used to subsidize marriage benefits for opposite *** couples. I'm not ok with extending those benefits (and the cost) to same *** couples.

I was asked the question. I answered. And your response is to say that my opinion doesn't matter anyway? That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?


How about you answer my question? I've asked it twice now. Why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to *** couples? Do you have an answer for this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Feb 22 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
You continually pretend that they make sense, why can't we pretend to forget them?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#76 Feb 22 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I like how he didn't even reference my post proving, from the text of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, that he was wrong concerning what the court was specifically objecting to with reference to separate but equal.

I'm a little disappointed, to tell the truth. I was curious to see where his 180 would take him.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (64)