Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#202 Mar 05 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Again, I am in no way required to give you a primary document for my position, and you arguing for one is a logical fallacy (details above). Why? Because I'm not making an argument, I'm just critiquing yours. If you assume you are right because I can't hand you a document that says you are wrong, then you are a fool.

Especially since you are making an argument from inference. That REQUIRES substantial evidence to be anything other than a joke.

[EDIT] And my rejection is specifically a critique on the lack of evidence for yours. Do you actually not see how insane it is to demand for me to hand you primary evidence in this case?

gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.


What Majivo said.


Edited, Mar 5th 2012 6:31pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#203 Mar 05 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.

He's talking about your response to court verdicts which quite clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right, but which you somehow interpret to say that marriage is not a fundamental right.


Sigh... Which is itself a misunderstanding of the concept of a right.

You're deciding what are and are not rights now? We're doomed.
#204 Mar 06 2012 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.



Nice try dumb @#%^. I said name some legislation. You want to argue that a specific code was instated for a specific reason, name the specific code and we'll find out for sure.



I'm still waiting.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#205 Mar 07 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
So then, give up Gbaji?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#206Almalieque, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 1:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're combining two different topics.
#207 Mar 07 2012 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
You are only relevant if you vote. You are never irrelevant if you do. Even if your candidate loses, you still help set the precedent for the future. Do you think new parties just suddenly appear? It's a long slow process, with them getting slightly larger ratios each time until they can actually win seats. Even if you are voting for main parties, the specific percentages by which they win actually influences the campaign policies and candidates for the next election.

No, you aren't irrelevant if you vote. Not winning and not relevant are two totally different things.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#208 Mar 07 2012 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was going to argue with Alma more about it but, when I think about it, people who seriously believe "I just won't vote and that'll teach 'em!" aren't the sort I want voting anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#209Almalieque, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 1:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, it's nice that you feel voting for Mr. Pizza man made you relevant.
#210Almalieque, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 1:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhhh.. it's more like "I'm not going to support something that I don't support just to say I'm voting".
#211 Mar 07 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, no. You don't do it "just to say you're voting".

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212Almalieque, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 1:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I know, but if you don't support the guy, then you're an idiot and one of the only positive things that can come out of it is saying that you voted. At that point, you're no different than the people who voted for candidate x because s/he is "hot".
#213 Mar 07 2012 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
We're all better off for Alma not voting, so let's just let that one be.

Personally, if I couldn't choose between the two major candidates, I'd probably just vote for the most likely 3rd party one. The idea being that the vote would go towards making 3rd parties appear more viable in the future.

It'd be nice if American's Elect could sort itself out and help field someone interesting.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 3:06pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#214 Mar 07 2012 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
We're all better off for Alma not voting, so let's just let that one be

Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215 Mar 07 2012 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
We're all better off for Alma not voting, so let's just let that one be.

Personally, if I couldn't choose between the two major candidates, I'd probably just vote for the most likely 3rd party one. The idea being that the vote would go towards making 3rd parties appear more viable in the future.

It'd be nice if American's Elect could sort itself out and help field someone interesting.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 3:06pm by Eske


That's what I would do as well. I might not choose the most popular of the third parties, but I would probably look at the list of the top few and choose from them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#216 Mar 07 2012 at 3:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.



Nice try dumb @#%^. I said name some legislation. You want to argue that a specific code was instated for a specific reason, name the specific code and we'll find out for sure.



I'm still waiting.


Geez. I was busy doing other stuff yesterday. Holy ****!


Waiting for what? You said that you would provide a primary source showing an alternative reason why we created marriage benefits other than the one I have argued for. I responded by pointing out that while you provide a primary source, it did not say anything about *why* we created those benefits.


Do you see how this is relevant? I said that there is no primary source which can answer this question. To illustrate this point, I asked anyone to provide an alternative answer from a primary source. You failed to do so. Which proves my point.


If you cannot find a primary source explaining clearly why the government would grant marriage benefits in the first place, then insisting that my explanation for this is wrong because I can't find a primary source either is fallacious logic. Neither of us can. Thus, the argument doesn't disprove my position any more than any other. And we're left with me being able to at least provide what I believe is the reason why the government does this, and no one else being able to provide an alternative explanation.


Everything else being equal, my explanation stands as the best one anyone has presented because it's the only one anyone has presented. You're free to provide your own explanation if you want, but even though I've asked for this repeatedly, no one seems willing or able to do so. How can you argue about who we should apply those benefits to, if you apparently have no clue *why* the benefits exist in the first place? Do you just think it's like manna from heaven or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Mar 07 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
Quote:
Do you see how this is relevant? I said that there is no primary source which can answer this question. To illustrate this point, I asked anyone to provide an alternative answer from a primary source. You failed to do so. Which proves my point.


No, moron, it doesn't. And we've been very clear why.

Furthermore, you have not given a single convincing argument for why a primary source would not exist for your account.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#218 Mar 07 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Again, I am in no way required to give you a primary document for my position, and you arguing for one is a logical fallacy (details above).


If you're demanding it of me to support my position, then it's valid to test if one is needed by checking of such primary support exists for any other position. If it doesn't, then it's an unfair demand.


Quote:
Why? Because I'm not making an argument, I'm just critiquing yours.


Except you are. Assuming we agree that there must be a reason why those benefits were created, then just saying "you're wrong" isn't a sufficient counter argument. You must provide an alternative explanation.


Quote:
If you assume you are right because I can't hand you a document that says you are wrong, then you are a fool.


That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that I'm not wrong because I can't hand you a document that says I'm right. I'm illustrating this by showing that no one else can either.

Quote:
Especially since you are making an argument from inference. That REQUIRES substantial evidence to be anything other than a joke.


An argument from inference requires only that one look at the facts which are available and infer some conclusion. In my case, I'm looking at the set of benefits, looking at the historical criteria for those benefits, and inferring a reason one might grant those benefits to that set of people.

It's a perfectly legitimate logical process to use, isn't it? It's no different than looking at the intentional grounding rule in football, then noting rules regarding ball position after a sack versus an incomplete pass, and inferring that the rule exists to prevent quarterbacks from easily avoiding a sack (and the attendant yardage loss). You can infer that without once finding a primary source saying that's why the rule exists, right? And you'd be right.


More to the point, if one person was arguing that that's why the rule exists and someone else just kept saying "you're wrong", wouldn't our first response be "Ok, then why do you think the rule exists"? And if he could not or would not provide an alternative explanation, we'd stick with the one that fits the facts, right? Same deal here. As I said, it's a perfectly legitimate methodology to use in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Mar 07 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Do you see how this is relevant? I said that there is no primary source which can answer this question. To illustrate this point, I asked anyone to provide an alternative answer from a primary source. You failed to do so. Which proves my point.


No, moron, it doesn't. And we've been very clear why.

Furthermore, you have not given a single convincing argument for why a primary source would not exist for your account.


Why would I need to? If no one can produce a primary source explaining why those benefits were created, then that case exists for anyone who attempts to argue why we created those benefits. It has nothing to do with my specific argument at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Mar 07 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Mar 07 2012 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
You have to because you are the one making an argument.

All we are doing is attacking your argument, we are not making one.

If I were to say "Marriage benefits were established for X", I would need to substantiate that with proof.

If I were to say "Marriage benefits were not established for X", I would need to substantiate that with proof.

All WE are doing is saying "Your argument for the establishment of Marriage Benefits does not appear valid to us, please offer us evidence for why we should accept it."

You know what the difference is? On one, we are defending a position. On another, all we are doing is attacking your argument. We aren't attacking the conclusion of your argument, though we clearly don't agree with it, we are attacking your logic.

So defend it, you ********* Demanding proof for our argument makes no sense, because we aren't making arguments.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#222 Mar 07 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.



Nice try dumb @#%^. I said name some legislation. You want to argue that a specific code was instated for a specific reason, name the specific code and we'll find out for sure.



I'm still waiting.


Geez. I was busy doing other stuff yesterday. Holy ****!


Waiting for what? You said that you would provide a primary source showing an alternative reason why we created marriage benefits other than the one I have argued for. I responded by pointing out that while you provide a primary source, it did not say anything about *why* we created those benefits.


Do you see how this is relevant? I said that there is no primary source which can answer this question. To illustrate this point, I asked anyone to provide an alternative answer from a primary source. You failed to do so. Which proves my point.


If you cannot find a primary source explaining clearly why the government would grant marriage benefits in the first place, then insisting that my explanation for this is wrong because I can't find a primary source either is fallacious logic. Neither of us can. Thus, the argument doesn't disprove my position any more than any other. And we're left with me being able to at least provide what I believe is the reason why the government does this, and no one else being able to provide an alternative explanation.


Everything else being equal, my explanation stands as the best one anyone has presented because it's the only one anyone has presented. You're free to provide your own explanation if you want, but even though I've asked for this repeatedly, no one seems willing or able to do so. How can you argue about who we should apply those benefits to, if you apparently have no clue *why* the benefits exist in the first place? Do you just think it's like manna from heaven or something?



HOLY **** ARE YOU RETARDED BATMAN.

Let's try this in plain and simple english one more time.

1. You assert (repeatedly) that benefits are granted to married couples for reason X.
2. I'm asking you to identify the exact U.S. code which grants these benefits per your argument.
3. I'll then seek any number of available primary sources to prove your assertion either right or wrong.

We're stuck on step number 2 because you're either the most ignorant inbred dumb *** mother @#%^er on the planet, or you refuse to enter into this part of the argument because you fear you'll be proven wrong. I'm guessing the latter is the case, but I'm not yet willing to rule out the former.

And to clarify, it is imperative that YOU specify the exact code we're talking about here, because if I make assumptions as to which codified benefits you're referring, you'll argue simply that "those aren't the ones I was talking about!" and deflect yet again. YOU lay the foundation, I'll build the walls.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 4:25pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#223 Mar 08 2012 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Candidates don't need 50%+ of the population, they need a plurality of the voters. The only thing not voting does is make you irrelevant to the candidates.


Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway. There's a reason why politics focus in some areas more than others.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 5:54am by Almalieque
I know, right? Scott Brown sure wasted his time running against Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. A republican would never win a Mass. Senate seat. And when was the last time NJ had a conservative governor? Good point, Alma.



Given that you didn't contradict my point, I would say that it is. I'm not even a political junkie and I know this much. At this point, I don't think you're arguing just to counter me, but you are actually confusedSmiley: lol

Are you really so profoundly retarded that you didn't see my sarcasm contradicting your awful assertion?
____________________________
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
#224Almalieque, Posted: Mar 08 2012 at 2:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you don't support the 3rd party candidate, then you're better off voting for one of the two major candidates because they have a better chance of actually winning. Unless you like voting for losers. What you said sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that unless others STOP voting for the two major candidates, your votes for the 3rd party will be overshadowed.
#225 Mar 08 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske wrote:
Personally, if I couldn't choose between the two major candidates, I'd probably just vote for the most likely 3rd party one. The idea being that the vote would go towards making 3rd parties appear more viable in the future.


If you don't support the 3rd party candidate, then you're better off voting for one of the two major candidates because they have a better chance of actually winning. Unless you like voting for losers. What you said sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that unless others STOP voting for the two major candidates, your votes for the 3rd party will be overshadowed.


That is about as soundly as you could possibly miss the point. Wow. Honestly, wow.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#226Almalieque, Posted: Mar 08 2012 at 2:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not sure what you're getting at, but my point is that you're an idiot for voting for a 3rd party that you don't support. That's even worse than voting for the lesser of two evils. You're better off not even getting out of the bed. Your belief that it will some how change the outcome in the future is false hope.
#227 Mar 08 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Eske wrote:
Personally, if I couldn't choose between the two major candidates, I'd probably just vote for the most likely 3rd party one. The idea being that the vote would go towards making 3rd parties appear more viable in the future.


If you don't support the 3rd party candidate, then you're better off voting for one of the two major candidates because they have a better chance of actually winning. Unless you like voting for losers. What you said sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that unless others STOP voting for the two major candidates, your votes for the 3rd party will be overshadowed.


That is about as soundly as you could possibly miss the point. Wow. Honestly, wow.


I'm not sure what you're getting at, but my point is that you're an idiot for voting for a 3rd party that you don't support. That's even worse than voting for the lesser of two evils. You're better off not even getting out of the bed. Your belief that it will some how change the outcome in the future is false hope.


It changes things exactly as much as a single vote for any candidate. Which is to say, an infinitesimally small amount. But of course, that's not a reason to not vote.

Herp derp.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#228 Mar 08 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
So according to Alma, you shouldn't vote unless you know your vote is going to be that one vote that makes the difference.
____________________________
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.
#229 Mar 08 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,893 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
So according to Alma,
For all we know he could be talking about the urban coefficient of beef byproduct electoral profits. Better to not try to decipher it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#230gbaji, Posted: Mar 08 2012 at 3:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're doing so poorly though. A test which cannot produce a true result is a meaningless test. That's logic. You test your test by determining if it can produce true/false results which match what we expect. In this case, if there is no claim about the reason for marriage benefits which can be supported with a primary source, then the lack of a primary source cannot be a valid test for any argued reason.
#231 Mar 08 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Point taken.
____________________________
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.
#232 Mar 08 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
Quote:

Wrong. You are making the argument that only a primary source can be used to determine the reason marriage benefits were created and that since I can't provide a primary source detailing that reason, then my argument must be false.


You realize that, if that was the argument I was making, then demanding me to provide a primary source in oppossition to you wouldn't actually have anything to do with that?

I don't believe your argument. I cannot deny your conclusion because I don't believe your argument, but accepting the argument and denying the conclusion isn't an option.

If you want to prove your point, then prove your point. As of right now, I have no reason to believe you in either case. But the surest way to change that is to make a logically valid argument using sound premises.

***** and moan about how I'm not providing a contrary source. It still doesn't matter, because I've made no argument. I have only critiqued yours. You can continue to deflect if you want--I don't mind the +1s, but it's pathetic to watch.

[EDIT]

To clarify, I'm not concluding that your argument is false because you don't have any primary support. I don't believe the argument, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Primary support would change that by providing me solid proof that you are right.

I'm not saying it's false because you don't have proof. I'm saying it sounds ******* insane to me, and am offering you the chance to show me that I'm wrong.

For someone who just loves "proving" others wrong, you should be jumping at this opportunity. That fact that you are refusing to says a lot about your position.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 4:58pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#233gbaji, Posted: Mar 08 2012 at 4:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lol. Good luck with that. Have fun storming the castle!
#234 Mar 08 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
...

blah blah blah


Got time for my request yet, or do you decline?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#235 Mar 08 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Maybe you missed it, but he was asking you to pick one. Any one. You'll pick the piece for which your argument is strongest, if you're smart.

He's not asking you to hand him all of marriage legislation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#236gbaji, Posted: Mar 08 2012 at 4:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not refusing to support my position. I've done this many times already. The problem is that no matter how much support I provide, someone just keeps raising the bar. What's obnoxious about it is that the bar for their arguments are set so low as to be laughable. Just more of the double standard I guess.
#237 Mar 08 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
...

blah blah blah


Got time for my request yet, or do you decline?


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Maybe you missed it, but he was asking you to pick one. Any one. You'll pick the piece for which your argument is strongest, if you're smart.

He's not asking you to hand him all of marriage legislation.



Um... guys? Look up maybe?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Mar 08 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
...

blah blah blah


Got time for my request yet, or do you decline?


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Maybe you missed it, but he was asking you to pick one. Any one. You'll pick the piece for which your argument is strongest, if you're smart.

He's not asking you to hand him all of marriage legislation.



Um... guys? Look up maybe?


Pointing to an ENTIRE CHAPTER OF US CODE is NOT AT ALL SPECIFIC. It's akin to saying "I know where Waldo is!" and pointing to a sea of millions of people dressed in peppermint striped shirts and hats. Sure, in general, you may be on track, but it's not at all helpful. Which tax "benefit" would you like to discuss, specifically?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#239 Mar 08 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#240 Mar 08 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at,

This should be Alma's answer to every post.
#241 Mar 08 2012 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Quote:
I'm asking you to provide a primary source that provides *any* reason for why we created those marriage benefits. Any reason. I don't care.


And what I'm telling you is that I don't care why we provided them, nor am I interested at the moment in conjecturing why they were created. I'm interested in your argument. My unwillngess or inability to provide a different answer doesn't help your argument at all.

Keep avoiding the question all you want thought.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#242 Mar 08 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts



BrownDuck wrote:

Pointing to an ENTIRE CHAPTER OF US CODE is NOT AT ALL SPECIFIC. It's akin to saying "I know where Waldo is!" and pointing to a sea of millions of people dressed in peppermint striped shirts and hats. Sure, in general, you may be on track, but it's not at all helpful. Which tax "benefit" would you like to discuss, specifically?



You get that US legal code doesn't come in separate paragraphs, right? You asked for the "exact US code which grants these benefits per your argument". Did you even click the link and read? As I already explained, the code isn't written with just "stuff that marriage does". It's divided into "stuff that affects tax rates, including marriage" and "stuff that affects social security, including marriage". I have provided you exactly that which you asked for.


Do you want me to quote just the parts that reference marriage? You'll lose formatting and links in the text, but here you go:

Quote:
a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


and

Quote:
d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $44,575 $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $70,000 $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $125,000 $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the excess over $125,000.



and

Quote:
(f) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket; adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases
(1) In general
Not later than December 15 of 1993, and each subsequent calendar year, the Secretary shall prescribe tables which shall apply in lieu of the tables contained in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect to taxable years beginning in the succeeding calendar year.
(2) Method of prescribing tables
The table which under paragraph (1) is to apply in lieu of the table contained in subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), as the case may be, with respect to taxable years beginning in any calendar year shall be prescribed—
(A) except as provided in paragraph (8), by increasing the minimum and maximum dollar amounts for each rate bracket for which a tax is imposed under such table by the cost-of-living adjustment for such calendar year,
(B) by not changing the rate applicable to any rate bracket as adjusted under subparagraph (A), and
(C) by adjusting the amounts setting forth the tax to the extent necessary to reflect the adjustments in the rate brackets.
(3) Cost-of-living adjustment
For purposes of paragraph (2), the cost-of-living adjustment for any calendar year is the percentage (if any) by which—
(A) the CPI for the preceding calendar year, exceeds
(B) the CPI for the calendar year 1992.
(4) CPI for any calendar year
For purposes of paragraph (3), the CPI for any calendar year is the average of the Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on August 31 of such calendar year.
(5) Consumer Price Index
For purposes of paragraph (4), the term “Consumer Price Index” means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the revision of the Consumer Price Index which is most consistent with the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1986 shall be used.
(6) Rounding
(A) In general
If any increase determined under paragraph (2)(A), section 63 (c)(4), section 68(b)(2) or section 151 (d)(4) is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.
(B) Table for married individuals filing separately
In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) (other than with respect to sections 63 (c)(4) and 151 (d)(4)(A)) shall be applied by substituting “$25” for “$50” each place it appears.
(7) Special rule for certain brackets
(A) Calendar year 1994
In prescribing the tables under paragraph (1) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar year 1994, the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the dollar amounts at which the 36 percent rate bracket begins or at which the 39.6 percent rate begins under any table contained in subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).
(B) Later calendar years
In prescribing tables under paragraph (1) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in a calendar year after 1994, the cost-of-living adjustment used in making adjustments to the dollar amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be determined under paragraph (3) by substituting “1993” for “1992”.
(8) Elimination of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket
With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)—
(A) the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and
(B) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be 1/2 of the amounts determined under subparagraph (A).



and

Quote:
(5) Special rules for determining parent to whom subsection applies
For purposes of this subsection, the parent whose taxable income shall be taken into account shall be—
(A) in the case of parents who are not married (within the meaning of section 7703), the custodial parent (within the meaning of section 152(e)) of the child, and
(B) in the case of married individuals filing separately, the individual with the greater taxable income.




There. That's every part either specific to, or that references, marriage in this section of the US legal code. I've given you plenty to work with, now you go get to finding those primary sources explaining exactly why the tax brackets are different and there's a whole section on phasing out the marriage penalty, and why there's a special mention of married and unmarried folks in the section on "(g) Certain unearned income of children taxed as if parent’s income ".


As I said earlier: Knock yourself out. Have fun storming the castle!


Remember that this is precisely what you have demanded that I must do in order to defend my position. I think it's ridiculous, but by all means prove me wrong if you can.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#243 Mar 08 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
He's asking for a specific piece of legislation, you moron, not a piece of legal code. Pick out a single act that created any marriage benefit of your choosing, and he'll take it from there.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#244 Mar 08 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
I'm asking you to provide a primary source that provides *any* reason for why we created those marriage benefits. Any reason. I don't care.


And what I'm telling you is that I don't care why we provided them, nor am I interested at the moment in conjecturing why they were created. I'm interested in your argument.


Are you? Because my argument is about why we created those benefits. So you kinda need to decide if you care about, or don't care about that.

Quote:
My unwillngess or inability to provide a different answer doesn't help your argument at all.


I suspect you don't have a clue what my argument is. How about you start over and re-read everything I've written in this thread. Then, when you know what I'm saying and *why* I'm saying it, come back and ask an intelligent question.

Quote:
Keep avoiding the question all you want thought.


I'm sorry? There was a question in there? See. I *thought* you were asking me why I don't believe that a primary source is necessary to prove my point. But then you said you didn't care about primary sources, so I assume you were asking what I believe is the reason for creating the marriage benefits. But apparently you are now claiming you don't care about that either.


So I guess we're left with you babbling incoherently? Do you have a question? Or are you just posting random contrary crap? Cause it sure seems like the latter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#245 Mar 08 2012 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
He's asking for a specific piece of legislation, you moron, not a piece of legal code.


BrownDuck wrote:
2. I'm asking you to identify the exact U.S. code which grants these benefits per your argument.


Sigh... Might want to hold that moron-mirror up to you own face.

Quote:
Pick out a single act that created any marriage benefit of your choosing, and he'll take it from there.


Not what he asked for. I could do that too, but I guarantee you he still wont find a "primary source" that provides the information being asked for here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#246 Mar 08 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Huh. Running into a lot of this:

Quote:
The text of this statute is not available

Unfortunately, public sources of the Statutes at Large leave a lot out. The Library of Congress has mounted volumes 1-18 (to 1874) as part of its American Memory collection. The Government Printing Office took responsibility for the Statutes in 1875, but has only made electronic versions available from 1995 onward (volumes 109 and up).


So I guess that limits us to marriage benefits created before 1875 or after 1995. Tricksy...


Is this seriously the right way to do this? All to prove that a primary source is not necessary to make a good sound argument?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#247 Mar 08 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When you make a "good sound" argument in someone's opinion besides your own, we'll let you know Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#248 Mar 08 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Here Brownduck. Since I was bored, I figured I'd help you out:

H.R.3734 (not sure if the direct link will work, but you should be able to search by the name).

Relevant portions:

Quote:
Denies TANF assistance in cases: (1) where an individual family member is a fugitive felon or a probation or parole violator; and (2) where unmarried teenage parents with a minor child at least 12 weeks of age in their care do not attend high school or other equivalent training program.


Quote:
Requires, in addition, certain adult-supervised living arrangements for unmarried teenage parents in order for them to receive TANF


Quote:
(Sec. 803) Treats children who are themselves parents living with their children and married children living with their spouses as part of an existing household rather than as a separate household.



By all means, knock yourself out finding a "primary source" which explains why we give benefits to married teens over unmarried ones with regard to TANF and why a married teen is part of a household, but not an unmarried one. Those three quoted bits are clear advantages for a married person over an unmarried one, right? Can you find any information as to why?


Go ahead and knock yourself out finding a primary source which answers that question. I mean, I think most of us can noodle it out in this case, but you insist that only a primary source will do, so I guess we all just have to shut our brains off and wait for someone to write something down and put it in front of us or something!


You ready to knock off the whole "primary source" requirement yet?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#249 Mar 08 2012 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Here Brownduck. Since I was bored, I figured I'd help you out:

H.R.3734 (not sure if the direct link will work, but you should be able to search by the name).

Relevant portions:

Quote:
Denies TANF assistance in cases: (1) where an individual family member is a fugitive felon or a probation or parole violator; and (2) where unmarried teenage parents with a minor child at least 12 weeks of age in their care do not attend high school or other equivalent training program.


Quote:
Requires, in addition, certain adult-supervised living arrangements for unmarried teenage parents in order for them to receive TANF


Quote:
(Sec. 803) Treats children who are themselves parents living with their children and married children living with their spouses as part of an existing household rather than as a separate household.



By all means, knock yourself out finding a "primary source" which explains why we give benefits to married teens over unmarried ones with regard to TANF and why a married teen is part of a household, but not an unmarried one. Those three quoted bits are clear advantages for a married person over an unmarried one, right? Can you find any information as to why?


Go ahead and knock yourself out finding a primary source which answers that question. I mean, I think most of us can noodle it out in this case, but you insist that only a primary source will do, so I guess we all just have to shut our brains off and wait for someone to write something down and put it in front of us or something!


Can we agree that a primary source would include the direct findings of a congressional committee involved in the creation of said legislation? Yes, I thought we could. In that case, you need to look no further than the beginning of the final bill itself.


TITLE I—BLOCK GRANTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Sec. 101 - Findings

- Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.

- It is estimated that the rate of nonmarital teen pregnancy rose 23 percent from 54 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried teenagers in 1976 to 66.7 pregnancies in 1991. The overall rate of nonmarital pregnancy rose 14 percent from 90.8 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried women in 1980 to 103 in both 1991 and 1992. In contrast, the overall pregnancy rate for married couples decreased 7.3 percent between 1980 and 1991, from 126.9 pregnancies per 1,000 married women in 1980 to 117.6 pregnancies in 1991.

- The number of individuals receiving aid to families with dependent children (in this section referred to as ‘‘AFDC’’) has more than tripled since 1965. More than two-thirds of these recipients are children. Eighty-nine percent of children receiving AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is present.

- While the number of children receiving AFDC benefits increased nearly threefold between 1965 and 1992,
the total number of children in the United States aged
0 to 18 has declined by 5.5 percent.

- The increase in the number of children receiving public assistance is closely related to the increase in births to unmarried women. Between 1970 and 1991, the percentage of live births to unmarried women increased nearly threefold, from 10.7 percent to 29.5 percent

- Between 1985 and 1990, the public cost of births to teenage mothers under the aid to families with dependent children program, the food stamp program, and the medicaid program has been estimated at $120,000,000,000.

Therefore, in light of this demonstration of the crisis in our Nation, it is the sense of the Congress that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very important Government interests and the policy contained in part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as amended by section 103(a) of this Act) is intended to address the crisis


Goodness gracious that was hard!

The primary finding of the congressional committee(s) was that single parent teen families were on the rise and this was encouraging an over-dependence on a program designed to help families get back on their feet, not provide long term assistance to single parents who make no effort to improve the quality of life for their children. To that end, the bill was drafted to end this abuse of the program by adding in the qualifications you conveniently quoted above.

So, what we have here is:

1. A program devised to help needy families.
2. Subsequent long term abuse of said program by single parent families.
3. A bill drafted with the intention of ending said abuse by addressing the root cause - single parent families.

Agreed? No? Just in case not...


TITLE I—BLOCK GRANTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Sec. 401 - PURPOSE


(a) IN GENERAL.—The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility  
of States in operating  
     a program designed to — 
   (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own  
       homes or in the homes of relatives; 
   (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job  
       preparation, work, and marriage; 
   (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual     
       numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and 
   (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.


In conclusion, this bill clarifies the belief that single parent families are less successful (measured by the welfare and future success of the children) than two parent families and establishes a goal to promote the prevention and reduction of single parent homes by a) encouraging job training and preparation and b) eliminating an "easy out" in the form of additional government benefits.

It is important to note here that aside from casual use of the words "mother" and "father" within social context, this bill makes no attempt to distinguish between a successful heterosexual two parent family vs. a successful homosexual two parent family. The only claim is that two parents is better than one.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 9:42pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#250gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Except for the whole "trying to prevent out of wedlock births" bit.
#251 Mar 09 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
So here's a primary source which sets a benefit to being married based primarily on the assumption that it is in the states interest to reduce the rate of out of wedlock births.

We're agreed on this?


Sure.

Quote:
Isn't that exactly the argument I've been making in this thread the whole **** time? If the reason the state created these benefits is to discourage out of wedlock births (presumably by encouraging people to marry), doesn't it only make sense in the case of people who are creating the problem in the first place? Are there a lot of poor *** people on foodstamps who keep getting pregnant and putting more kids into a dependent state? No?


So does it make sense to provide this benefit to a *** couple? No. It doesn't.


Here's the part that makes you an idiot. There's nothing stopping any single mother from realizing that she's *** and wanting to marry a female lover. The same goes for a single father (which although more rare, does exist) who decides he's *** and wants to marry a male lover. The same could even be said for an already *** couple who wishes to adopt a child. In all three cases, there's no legitimate reason to deny the same benefits to such a couple should they fall on hard times. This does not justify your argument that marriage is only for heterosexual child-bearing couples, nor does it preempt the legitimacy of any homosexual marriage at all. Indeed, even a typical heterosexual couple might not qualify for these very b0enefits if they are not raising a child. This particular benefit has everything to do with providing for children, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the marriage of two people who love each other, except to say that marriage increases the likelihood that a child will have the benefit of two parents, regardless of the *** of each parent.

Try again.


Edited, Mar 9th 2012 8:41pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
Aripyanfar, TherealLogros, Anonymous Guests (43)