Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#102gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 3:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. Which is why conservatives have been arguing against those benefits for 40-50 years now on exactly the grounds that they are damaging the traditional family and the institution of marriage. So now that we've gone down the slippery slope for so long, you use the very thing conservatives opposed because it would lead us to this to argue for exactly what we warned it would cause? Now that the left has made single parenthood more beneficial than marriage, it means that marriage isn't really important to the state anyway, so why not just hand it out willy nilly?
#103 Feb 23 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make gay people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are gay so that the whole "exposed as gay" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


Also, Godwin's driving that car.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#104 Feb 23 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trifecta!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If there isn't then we should be eliminating them, not expanding them. Perhaps *you* don't think that benefits should be granted only if there's some larger social goal, but most conservative believe that this is the case. It's kinda silly for you to insist that I must make my decisions based on your own criteria. I believe that we shouldn't provide these benefits unless there's a goal to them. I accept the cost of those benefits because of a specific goal that I believe they serve. Extending those benefits to gay couples does not serve the same goal. Thus, I oppose that extension of benefits.
#106 Feb 23 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Feb 23 2012 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
"It's the government's job to give incentives to create nuclear families."

Oh, so it's the government's job to direct society?

"ABSOLUTELY NOT! Government has no right acting as an agent of change."

Smiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#108 Feb 23 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you?

How about the fact that he threatened to export his gay lover if he said anything, you fucking retard?
#109 Feb 23 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make gay people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are gay so that the whole "exposed as gay" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


As opposed to the strawman which says that all republicans must be anti-gay, or the excluded middle that says that a gay person must either shout his homosexuality from the rooftops, or be willing to commit a crime to conceal it. You're the one who started this ride Joph. I'm just taking your own illogic and showing you how ridiculous it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Feb 23 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you?

How about the fact that he threatened to export his gay lover if he said anything, you fucking retard?


Except that's not what happened. It is the assumption many of you have leaped to based on your own biases. The only threat the sheriff sent did not mention deportation, and was related to his ex hacking into his web sites. There is *zero* evidence that this had anything to do with homosexuality, fear of exposure, or anything like that. You're filling in the gaps with your own biased assumptions.


That's why I keep saying this is circular. You assume all republicans must be anti-gay. Thus, you assume any gay republican must fear being exposed as gay. Thus, you assume that anything he did must have been motivated by that fear. Don't you see that if you eliminate the first assumption, all the others fall apart? Your own assumptions lead you to a conclusion which supports your own assumption. It's circular though. You assume the whole thing is about him being gay, while ignoring the evidence which says that it's about something else entirely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Feb 23 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"It's the government's job to give incentives to create nuclear families."


Nope. That's not the government's job at all. However, if the government has chosen to collect income taxes, and has chosen to create social security, and has chosen to create pensions and military benefits, and it already uses those things to influence some parts of our society, then it's acceptable (even preferable) to use those already existing structures to encourage positive behavior.

Quote:
Oh, so it's the government's job to direct society?

"ABSOLUTELY NOT! Government has no right acting as an agent of change."

Smiley: lol


You're being selective though. I would gladly argue that we eliminate all marriage benefits *if* we also eliminate personal income taxes, social security, medicare, income security, government pensions, and all government funded or mandated benefits of all kinds in our society. Are you ok with that? Cause I am. But until then, I'll argue as I have: That I am willing to accept an increase of my taxes to pay for benefits for heterosexual married couples because I believe that the resulting social positives outweigh the negatives. Now, if we lived in a system where no part of the fruits of my labors would have to pay for the education, welfare, health care, food, housing, legal expenses and incarceration costs that are inevitably going to be higher if the percentage of children born to unmarried women is higher, then I would have no reason to even consider paying higher taxes so as to attempt to reduce that rate.

We don't live in that world, do we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Feb 23 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Ignoring your absurd argument that the government created those things as an encouragement for marriages (which you've never once provided a shred of proof for, and I'm not at all interested in discussing it until you do)...

So you think it's okay for the government to implement a system, and then use it to police society? Why in the world is that superior to creating a law specifically to police society?

I vastly prefer the later. It's easier to combat if it's being abused.

Unless your argument is that tax benefits and such have accidentally added incentive to create nuclear families. But I doubt that's the case, considering its contrary to the argument you've been screaming for years.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#113 Feb 23 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Can't be working all that well, seeing as over half of all marriages over there end in divorce.
____________________________
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
#114 Feb 23 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm just taking your own illogic and showing you how ridiculous it is.

Oh, no doubt that's exactly your intent Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 6:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Of course that's not the case. A couple hundred years ago, our society imposed marriage rules on couples by inflicting harsh social (and sometimes legal) penalties for violating them. Today, we use government funded benefits to do the same thing. Why assume that the objective has changed? IMO, only the methodology has. We use those benefits today for the same reasons historical cultures have applied things like banishments, social stigma, shotgun weddings, etc. The only difference is that you've adopted a political agenda which requires you to ignore that history and pretend that we never had any reason to do any of those thins at all. Marriage laws just appeared with no purpose or reason.
#116 Feb 23 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ITT: Gbaji doesn't understand the word "evidence".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Feb 23 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I want "proof" in the form of primary sources, court documents, speeches, or anything to suggest that this was actually a reason the laws were created.

"Proof" does not refer to op-eds, editorials, or opinion pieces, and you are @#%^ing idiot for continuing to link them. No, really, there's absolutely no reason to sugar coat it any more. If you actually can't understand this, you must have to walk around wearing a helmet, and I'm almost ready to start considering Alma your intellectual superior.

Not only did you link me three articles of these sorts, you linked them from absurdly biased sources.

The only scholarly source you offered is one you clearly didn't read, otherwise you'd have realized it was discussing Transsexual marriage. The absolutely hilarious part was that they declared that a male-to-female transexual and male person had every right to marry, despite having no sexual ability to produce children. Why? Because they determined that there was no aspect of the marriage contract that demanded the ability to produce children, should both partners be in a state to accept that. The court ruled that the appearance of sex was what mattered, not the actuality of it--if one sexual organ was entering another, even if they did not function properly, it was intercourse. Included in that was the determination that valid marriage was not linked to the presence of, or ability to create, children.

Furthermore, there are some great gems in the piece. For instance, the fact that Marriage is, in law and our society, a "status, not a civil contract." Well, there goes your argument that law is a civil contract and, therefore, equal to a civil union.

In other words, the only source that wasn't absurd--a scholarly source--is one proving you wrong, you @#%^ing imbecile.

[EDIT]
Quote:
ITT: Gbaji doesn't understand the word "evidence".


Unfair, I was in class and typing this while listening. Ironically, the discussion is about the functions of Medieval marriage. Specifically, the fact that love had no part in the marriage contract, that parental relationships with children were nothing like we understand them today, and that it was essentially an inherent part of medieval marriage that men would not be faithful. Marriage was for economics, lust was outside of it.

When we began to marry for love, we left this system behind us.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 8:05pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Feb 23 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
622 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Can't be working all that well, seeing as over half of all marriages over there end in divorce.

That's only because the gay people want to get married, which in turn destroys the institution of marriage. If it wasn't for that, nobody would cheat and actually live up to "til death do we part".
#119 Feb 23 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
What better way to stop gay sex than to let them get married?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Feb 23 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What better way to stop gay sex than to let them get married?


Oh, you! That would only work for lesbians, duh.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#121 Feb 23 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
What better way to stop gay sex than to let them get married?


Oh, you! That would only work for lesbians, duh.


Judging by how many straight men are having buttsex on the side, I'm guessing a lot of the married queers would actually go looking for vagina. So does that help or hurt marriage?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 Feb 23 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I want "proof" in the form of primary sources, court documents, speeches, or anything to suggest that this was actually a reason the laws were created.


What would you consider a primary source though? Speeches by whom? Aren't you just going to dismiss any source I use anyway?

The first link provides tons of court findings, including full citations. You should perhaps read it? Or perhaps read more of the links as well?

Quote:
"Proof" does not refer to op-eds, editorials, or opinion pieces, and you are @#%^ing idiot for continuing to link them.


If someone else has assembled a set of the exact sources and cites that you are asking for, I could cut and paste their entire work *or* just link to it. How about you try reading some of the things I linked to and see if some of them contain information which might just match what you're looking for? Do I have to hold your damn hand here?


Quote:
Not only did you link me three articles of these sorts, you linked them from absurdly biased sources.



Any source agreeing with me on this would be considered by you to be biased though. So your opinion is somewhat meaningless, isn't it?

Quote:
The only scholarly source you offered is one you clearly didn't read, otherwise you'd have realized it was discussing Transsexual marriage. The absolutely hilarious part was that they declared that a male-to-female transexual and male person had every right to marry, despite having no sexual ability to produce children. Why? Because they determined that there was no aspect of the marriage contract that demanded the ability to produce children, should both partners be in a state to accept that.


You didn't read the paragraph at the beginning, did you? While the abstract addresses the concept that the purpose and legal meaning of marriage has changed, it clearly states that what it changed *from* was one in which the states interest was illegitimate children *to* one where it focuses more on sexuality regardless of procreation. Regardless of the final position taken in the paper, it does support my position regarding the original state purpose for creating marriage licenses in the first place (in this case, to try to reduce the number of illegitimate children).
Furthermore, there are some great gems in the piece. For instance, the fact that Marriage is, in law and our society, a "status, not a civil contract." Well, there goes your argument that law is a civil contract and, therefore, equal to a civil union.

Quote:
When we began to marry for love, we left this system behind us.


That addresses why people marry, but *not* why the state chooses to provide benefits to those who do. That's the part you seem to keep missing.



Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? I'm still waiting for *anyone* to propose and support an alternative explanation as to why the state would create those marriage benefits in the first place. And no: "Because people wanted them" isn't good enough. People want lots of things, but we don't give all of them to them. There is always a reason why we grant some benefits, but not others. I'm asking you to do your own thinking and try to figure out why this might be. Call it an assignment if you want.

Can you do this? I've asked for this repeatedly, but no one seems willing or able to do it. I just can't see how you can sit there shooting down my explanation, when you can't produce one of your own.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Feb 23 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
gbaji wrote:
Any source agreeing with me on this would be considered by you to be biased though. So your opinion is somewhat meaningless, isn't it?
That's cool. Any source agreeing with them on this is considered by you to be biased, too. So you've canceled each other out in meaninglessness.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Feb 23 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Are you REALLY asking me to define what a primary source is? No wonder you have such a terrible grasp of history, your teachers clearly sucked. I'd expect a high school freshman to understand this concept.

A primary source is one that goes to the root of the problem. Do I have to define root for you too? If you are discussing how literature has changed over a period of 100 years, the actual pieces of literature are your primary source. Literary critiques might be a secondary source. If you are discussing how literary critique had changed, then those critiques would be primary sources (and scholarly articles on these changes, or citing changes, would be secondary sources).

You are making a claim that these laws and benefits were established for a specific reason. A primary source goes back to the very root of those laws and benefits. A primary source might be text from the law, text from the court that passed the law (on it, obviously), content from speeches made concerning the law (by those who PASSED it or proposed it), house debates on it, etc.

Opinion pieces published in newspapers at the time would not be primary sources. Opinion pieces published now definitely aren't.

It's an incredibly simple concept. A primary source gives you a primary account of what you are studying.

And are you seriously going to deny that a source from the "Catholic Defense" blog, or the Marriage Law Foundation ("to defend and protect marriage between a husband and wife") aren't biased. Are you that @#%^ing stupid?

If your point is obvious, is infallible, is so definitely true, then you should have no issues whatsoever in providing us with documents from the time of establishment that these laws/benefits were created for the reasons you describe.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#125 Feb 23 2012 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Do I have to hold your damn hand here?

If you thought you actually had a valid source, you'd be waving it from a banner rather than petulantly pouting that you shouldn't have to show anyone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Feb 23 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,711 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make gay people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are gay so that the whole "exposed as gay" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


Also, Godwin's driving that car.


This image has never been more relevant.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#127 Feb 24 2012 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
After being told by an aide that he in fact couldn't veto Maryland's gay marriage bill, Governor Christie boarded a plane to Maryland with the intent on eating everyone in the state.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#128 Feb 24 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
SLOTH LOVE CHUNK.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#129 Feb 24 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
SLOTH LOVE CHUNK.


That is very unfair to Sloth.
#130 Feb 24 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
After being told by an aide that he in fact couldn't veto Maryland's gay marriage bill, Governor Christie boarded a plane to Maryland with the intent on eating everyone in the state.


Maryland was quasi gay marriage friendly already, with it legal in D.C. and all. But I guess NJ is a wash? Maybe Snookie will campaign for gay rights for the ballot initiative they'll have in November.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#131 Feb 24 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,776 posts
I am very proud to live in Maryland right now. Last night I went to bed with a smile on my face knowing that our Governor O'Malley has promise to sign the bill one it reaches his desk.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#132 Feb 24 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,833 posts
This from todays local news in Maine:

KJonline wrote:
AUGUSTA -- Gay-marriage advocates turned in more than enough signatures to move ahead with a citizen initiative that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in Maine, the secretary of state's office ruled Thursday.


We had legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 but a peoples veto overturned the legislation. Supposedly, there was much big catholic money from-away channeled into Maine to seal the deal on the vote the last time around.

I'm hoping their money is busy elsewhere and unable to attend this latest battle.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#133 Feb 24 2012 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If Romney is the nominee, the Catholic Church will have money to send to Maine. If Santorum is nominee, the Mormons will send money to Maine.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Feb 24 2012 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
If Gingrich is the nominee, Gozer will send money to Maine.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#135 Feb 24 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If Gingrich is the nominee, Gozer will send money to Maine.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:24pm by lolgaxe

But what's he doing in my icebox??
#136 Feb 24 2012 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
ElneClare wrote:
I am very proud to live in Maryland right now. Last night I went to bed with a smile on my face knowing that our Governor O'Malley has promise to sign the bill one it reaches his desk.


Me too. Now that two of the "mid-atlantic three" have passed it (knock on wood) maybe we can glare across our borders at Virginia and go for a trifecta.
#137 Feb 24 2012 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Virginia's busy trying to medically rape women in the name of smaller and less intrusive government.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Feb 24 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Virginia's busy trying to medically rape women in the name of smaller and less intrusive government.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:24pm by Jophiel


Oh, Virginia.
#139 Feb 24 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Ok first thing - on Gbaji's point about power of attorney being enough - that is clearly not the case (just one example here):

Quote:
Janice Langbehn and Lisa Marie Pond and their children were on vacation in Florida when Lisa had an aneurysm. They each had granted the other power of attorney, but the Florida hospital chose not to recognize it for eight hours. For eight hours, Lisa lay dying alone in the hospital, while her spouse and children were forbidden contact with her. The usual counseling services that the hospital routinely provides for relatives of dying patients, were not offered to Lisa’s family. “Jackson Memorial social worker Defendant Frederick approached Janice and informed her that she should not expect to be provided any information on the condition of, or have the ability to be with Lisa Marie as they were in an ‘anti-gay city and state.’”

Source
Another source


So clearly power of attorney is no promise that you will be able to be at the side of your loved one before they die.

And this morning I saw this. Never thought I'd give Rudy kudos, but kudos Rudy.

Quote:
Giuliani: GOP doesn't look 'modern'
By: Tim Mak
February 24, 2012 09:02 AM EST

Former New York City Mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday evening that he was concerned that Republican stances on social issues makes the GOP look “like it isn’t a modern party.”

“I think the biggest problem right now, I think abortion you can work out… but I think the gay rights issue is a more current one right now. I think beyond all the religious and social parts, it makes the party look like it isn’t a modern party, it doesn’t understand the modern world we live in,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “OutFront.”

“Absolutely,” Giuliani added, when host Erin Burnett asked if the Republican Party’s positions on social issues could lead to the rise of a third party.

Giuliani, who ran for president in 2008, said that he was worried about how the Republican Party could appeal to more socially-moderate voters in the Northeast.

“I’m concerned about how do we get back the Northeast as a voting block when we seem to be not modern enough on social issues,” the former mayor said.

The national conversation has shifted remarkably in recent weeks towards social issues, such as gay marriage, public contraception funding, contraception insurance mandates and mandatory sonograms before abortion.

SOURCE



Also I love the name of the show he said this on...
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#140 Feb 24 2012 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Olorinus wrote:
And this morning I saw this. Never thought I'd give Rudy kudos, but kudos Rudy.

Quote:
Giuliani: GOP doesn't look 'modern'
By: Tim Mak
February 24, 2012 09:02 AM EST

Former New York City Mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday evening that he was concerned that Republican stances on social issues makes the GOP look “like it isn’t a modern party.”

“I think the biggest problem right now, I think abortion you can work out… but I think the gay rights issue is a more current one right now. I think beyond all the religious and social parts, it makes the party look like it isn’t a modern party, it doesn’t understand the modern world we live in,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “OutFront.”

This is what it looks like when I one-up you...
Quote:
"I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are."

-- Jeb Bush, quoted by Fox News, on the rhetoric of the Republican presidential candidates


Smiley: grin


Edited, Feb 24th 2012 3:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Feb 24 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
I saw that one this morning as well. I loved Jeb's "used to be a conservative" line.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#142 Feb 24 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
The social worker's name is Defendant?

Someone's parents had low expectations.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#143 Feb 28 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,585 posts
Let's add some fuel to the fire, shall we?

NY Times wrote:
As same-sex marriage supporters celebrate victories in Washington and Maryland this month, they are keeping a wary eye on New Hampshire, where lawmakers may soon vote to repeal the state’s two-year-old law allowing gay couples to wed.

...

Full article.

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 6:02pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#144 Feb 28 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Every time I see you now, I think about SatW and giggle.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#145 Feb 28 2012 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,585 posts
Smiley: grin
Also, do you know the other comic she writes/draws, Niels G?

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 7:02pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#146 Feb 28 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Are you REALLY asking me to define what a primary source is?


I know what a primary source is. I also know that what you're asking for has nothing to do with what you normally get from a primary source.

Quote:
No wonder you have such a terrible grasp of history, your teachers clearly sucked.


That's funny. It really really is. I always love it when someone who clearly doesn't grasp the concept of what he's discussion attempts to tell someone who does (that's me, btw) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not "fall on the floor" funny, but still amusing as hell.

Quote:
A primary source is one that goes to the root of the problem. Do I have to define root for you too? If you are discussing how literature has changed over a period of 100 years, the actual pieces of literature are your primary source.


Yup. And if we want to know *what* that literary source said, that would be the use of such a primary source. But that would not be where we'd go for *why*. You do understand that you're asking me to prove why a law was passed, and not what the law says.

Quote:
Literary critiques might be a secondary source.


Yup. And that's where you'd learn "why" something was written, or even what it meant. Do you see how anything beyond the literal words that are physically written on the page cannot ever be determined by going to a "primary source"? Of course, anyone who actually understood the concept of a primary source, would know this. But you don't. I do though.

Quote:
If you are discussing how literary critique had changed, then those critiques would be primary sources (and scholarly articles on these changes, or citing changes, would be secondary sources).


Yup. You're almost there.

Quote:
You are making a claim that these laws and benefits were established for a specific reason. A primary source goes back to the very root of those laws and benefits. A primary source might be text from the law, text from the court that passed the law (on it, obviously), content from speeches made concerning the law (by those who PASSED it or proposed it), house debates on it, etc.


Correct. And if laws were written by single individuals like pieces of literature, we could have primary sources of the reasons *why* they were written with the words they contained. But since they aren't, then all such writings are secondary sources. They must be. When Jefferson wrote his bit about the "wall of separation" between church and state, that cannot be considered a primary source for what the 1st amendment means, can it? It's only and always a secondary source. It's one person's opinion about what that amendment means. An important opinion, certainly, but not primary because nothing other than the actual words in the law can *ever* be considered a primary source.

Quote:
Opinion pieces published in newspapers at the time would not be primary sources. Opinion pieces published now definitely aren't.


Yup. But what you're demanding can only be found in the equivalent of opinion pieces written at the time, or written after that time. There is no primary source for *why* a law is written. The closest we can come is the incredibly rare occasion in which the body of the law itself contains a detailed reason. And even then, it's subject to interpretation, right? Consider the following: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Notice how the first part is an explanation of why this particular bit of law exists? It's as primary a source of "why" that can ever possibly exist for a law, right?

Get back to me when everyone agrees on what the first clause of that amendment actually means. Then get back to me when we agree on what separation of church and state means. Or any of a hundred other legal concepts.

Quote:
It's an incredibly simple concept. A primary source gives you a primary account of what you are studying.


And only the most simple minds think that this works in the world of law and politics. It's *all* opinion. It's all interpretation. There is no single primary source that tells us exactly what a law means, much less why it was passed. If there was, there'd kinda be no need for a Supreme Court, would there?

Quote:
And are you seriously going to deny that a source from the "Catholic Defense" blog, or the Marriage Law Foundation ("to defend and protect marriage between a husband and wife") aren't biased.


Of course not. The difference between you and I is that I understand that *all* sources which express an opinion about why a law is passed will be biased. You (and to be fair a lot of liberals based on the frequency with which this particular demand for sources of opinions is raised) labor under the absurd belief that there's some magical authoritarian source of all information which can tell us who is right and who is wrong. But in the case of interpreting the law, or determining why laws are written, there isn't. There can't be. You're delusional if you think there is.


What's so funny about this is that you also can't provide any "primary source" showing that the laws were written for some other reason anyway. But that lack does not prevent you from insisting that if I can't find one that supports my position that I must be wrong and you must be right. You can't apply the same logic to your own position. It's like a blind spot or something. If you can't do the same thing you're demanding that the other side do, then the fact the other guy can't do it never proves you right or him wrong. It means that you're asking for something that is meaningless (or nonhelpful) to the argument at hand.

Quote:
If your point is obvious, is infallible, is so definitely true, then you should have no issues whatsoever in providing us with documents from the time of establishment that these laws/benefits were created for the reasons you describe.



I can't provide you with anything you would accept as an unbiased, let alone primary, source. And you can't do so either. So how about we accept that any source will be biased, and non-primary, and move on?


The best we can do is look at the primary source (the laws themselves) and ask the question "what does this do?". Then we can ask "Why would someone want to do what this law does?". That's what I've done, and which is the proper way to approach this. And as I've repeatedly stated, despite constant insistence that I'm wrong, not one person has yet produced a counter explanation. Why do *you* think that the government created all those benefits and limited them in the way they did?


If you can't answer that question yourself, then you somewhat lose the grounds to question my answer. Try providing an alternative and arguing why your alternative is better than mine. Failing that, you lose. That's how arguments are supposed to work, right? The guy with the best explanation wins. I have one. You don't. Therefore, I win by default.

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 7:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Feb 29 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
So many words, so much Fail.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#148 Feb 29 2012 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
That's how arguments are supposed to work, right? The guy with the best explanation wins. I have one.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Feb 29 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
So many words, so much Fail.

Right? I don't even know how to argue against this. It's like trying to explain logic to someone who willfully refuses to acknowledge the value of it.

So I'll settle with this:

Gbaji. Laws are created for very specific reasons, and those reasons are ALWAYS canvassed in debates before their passing. They are almost always stated in the manuscripts themselves. Furthermore, because of the nature of democratic government, when laws are proposed they are specifically in response to some aspect of the system that they feel needs amending.

These may be found in opinion pieces, but to hold that anything in an opinion piece about said law refers to actual aspects of it is completely invalid. Only these debates and documents may actually describe the reasons for which a law was put to the vote and passed. Public or social responses to the law is a completely different issue.

It's incredibly poor scholarship to use editorials for historical study, if the purpose of your argument is to discuss legislative motivations. (Small caveat--such editorials ARE useful if written by someone involved in said vote, particularly if they proposed the bill).

If you want to argue that marriage benefits led to an increase in the relative value of marriage among the American public following this legislation, then editorials may actually be valid primary sources. But if you want to argue that they were INTENDED to facilitate such a change, you need to look at documents specifically relating to the intention of the legislators.

And for it to be a PRIMARY source, it needs to be a PRIMARY account of it. The account of someone not in attendance or a part of the legislative processes that led to the laws' passing cannot be a primary account of them.

[EDIT]

Oh, and here's a literary critique for you: Glenn Beck's book, "Being George Washington" is a piece of revisionist history that, in no way, truly captures the reality of the life of the United States' first president. It makes heavy use of baseless assumptions, and contradicts established historical fact (supported by legitimate, verifiable documents of the time). It is specifically written with a political motive, and makes no attempt to prevent affiliation from coloring the account. It is presented as a non-fiction source, but is in reality no better than a piece of historical fiction. Should it have been properly labeled, it's other flaws could be forgiven (assuming the reader doesn't demand authors make every attempt to remain as faithful to the historical narrative as possible), but it is truly far too biased and falsified to be considered a piece of legitimate historical academia.

I'm betting you won't agree with much of that. So explain to me why you think any other random-ass opinion piece or editorial would be a good primary source when searching for motivations of people completely unrelated to the author.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 2:06pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#150gbaji, Posted: Feb 29 2012 at 5:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not disputing what a primary source is. I'm asking you to apply the same argument to your own position. If you can't, or wont, then your argument fails. Surely you can see this?
#151 Feb 29 2012 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (47)