Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#202 Mar 05 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 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
*****
16,299 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
******
21,720 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
******
21,720 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
******
20,020 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
****
6,471 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
#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
******
20,020 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
******
34,982 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
******
20,020 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
******
34,982 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
******
34,982 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
******
20,020 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
******
21,720 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
****
6,471 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.
#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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)