Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#277 Aug 28 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I've always been perplexed by almas position that if you can't fix EVERYTHING you shouldn't bother fixing anything. It's something that's been discussed ad nauseam in other threads, but he refuses to see the value in incremental change. /shrug

It seems to be a solid part of his make-up, not just a SSM thing. He had the same argument as to why it was pointless to boycott a company -- you can't completely solve [issue] but boycotting [company making issue worse] so there's no sense in bothering at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#278 Aug 28 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I've always been perplexed by almas position that if you can't fix EVERYTHING you shouldn't bother fixing anything.
Not exactly only his position, but I'm also curious at what point they believe we should have stopped trying to fix anything. Woman's suffrage? Child labor? Slavery? How about that whole revolution thing? That didn't fix everything all at once either. It's pretty Amish if you think about it.

"We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850 - not too little, not too much."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#279Almalieque, Posted: Aug 28 2012 at 11:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For everyone who is constantly making accusations of me making an "All or nothing" argument, I would suggest you to read, then comprehend before posting.
#280 Aug 28 2012 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I get what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is in error.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#281 Aug 28 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Can we ban stupid yet?
____________________________
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.


#282 Aug 28 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Can we ban stupid yet?
For his own safety or something?
____________________________
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.
#283 Aug 28 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
..
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#284 Aug 28 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Can we ban stupid yet?
No, but you could utilize the ignore function.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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

#285 Aug 28 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Samira wrote:
Let me be the first to say (in this thread) that I would have no problem with incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships being decriminalized. The first are vanishingly rare, and the second are just none of my business. In my opinion, if anyone is messed-up enough to want to ***** his/her sibling or other immediate family member other than his/her spouse, it's probably a good idea to get that person off the dating market.

Add the usual boilerplate "consenting adults" language and send that out over my signature, thanks.


/signed.

I honestly don't care about someone's bestiial relationships either outside of the fact that non self aware parties can't consent to a marriage contract.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#286 Aug 28 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To me, it's not enough to just say "this thing I want today is important, but those other things are not", because invariably, once "this thing" is obtained, someone will turn to fighting for one of those "other things".

(A) Denying Group A because you fear Group B is childish and illogical


It's not me fearing Group B though. And despite the handful of posters saying that they don't have a problem with siblings marrying, or with polygamy, the reality is that most people today don't believe state recognized marriage should include those relationships. If that wasn't the case, then no one would spend so much time insisting that expanding marriage to include *** couples wont lead to those things.

What's childish and illogical is insisting that it's a slippery slope fallacy when someone says "If we expand the marriage status to include *** couples, it'll open the door for incestuous marriage and polygamy" rather than honestly owning that fact and arguing that we should expand that status because those other types of marriage should be recognized too. If you can't give a reason why one should be allowed, but not the others, then arguing for one *is* arguing for the others. But for some reason, those making that argument insist on being dishonest about it.

Quote:
(B) So what? If someone wants to make an argument for marrying [boogeyman!] then let them make it. If they can make a strong enough argument to sway enough people, they can change the law. That's how it works.


Then stop pretending that opening up the requirements for marriage in this case doesn't increase the odds of that future case as well. I'm just pointing out the inherent inconsistency (and dishonesty) of both insisting that those other things wont happen when they are brought up, but then failing to provide a reason why, then, when pressed just saying "It doesn't matter if it happens in the future anyway".

Why not start with that? You know the answer. Because if you started with admitting that one will lead to the other then you wont get what you want today. The process only works if you convince people that doing A wont lead to B, then once A is done, you can argue for B at your leisure. And you can even argue that B wont lead to C and hope that people are stupid enough to buy that line again. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws in the argument being made. One *will* lead to the other. So we really should consider the change being made, what precedent it will set, and ask whether the result down the line is what we want before making the change right in front of us.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#287 Aug 28 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Can we ban stupid yet?
No, but you could utilize the ignore function.

Already have, but when every other post is a response to him, it really takes away from the (limited) entertainment value of the thread.
____________________________
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.


#288 Aug 28 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not me fearing Group B though.

No, it's just you trying to scare people away from one thing by using an unrelated thing as a scary boogeyman.

Quote:
What's childish and illogical is insisting that it's a slippery slope fallacy when someone says "If we expand the marriage status to include *** couples, it'll open the door for incestuous marriage and polygamy"

All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.

Quote:
Then stop pretending that opening up the requirements for marriage in this case doesn't increase the odds of that future case as well.

All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.

Quote:
The process only works if you convince people that doing A wont lead to B, then once A is done, you can argue for B at your leisure

Advocates for incestual polygamy or whatever other scary boogeyman pairings you dream up can argue for them right this very moment. You know what will really lead to Man-Goat marriage? Enough people advocating for Man-Goat marriage to convince enough other people outside the Man-Goat marriage sphere that, yeah, Man-Goat marriage is something that should be allowed and those people petitioning and electing Congresscritters* who'll have Man-Goat marriage as part of their platform and take the Man-Goat marriage message to Washington where sufficient numbers of other Man-Goat marriage advocating Congresscritters will join them in casting votes to legalize Man-Goat marriage.

You'll notice that not a single step in that process involves "First make sure the gays can marry!" Again, you're just using these things as a boogeyman to scare people away from SSM because -- hey! It's a good bet they don't like incest so let's link SSM to that and that's easier than having a real argument against SSM!

* Or state legislators to their respective state houses depending on scope

Edited, Aug 28th 2012 5:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Aug 28 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
It occurred to me today that both of our Presidential candidates are descended from polygamist grandfathers on at least one side of the family.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#290 Aug 28 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I get what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is in error.


What error might that be?
#291 Aug 28 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not me fearing Group B though.

No, it's just you trying to scare people away from one thing by using an unrelated thing as a scary boogeyman.


I didn't make people view those things as a scary boogeyman Joph. I just (correctly) point out that by removing the restrictions within our marriage laws that currently exclude same *** couples, we're also removing the restrictions that currently exclude those other things. Once you remove the assumption of procreation from the criteria for marriage, then the rationale for denying it to siblings, parents and children, and groups larger than two disappear just as surely as the rational for denying it to same *** couples does.

Quote:
All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.


But those merits will be much stronger than they are today. No one will be able to argue that we shouldn't allow siblings to marry since they might have children, because you've already argued that having or not having children has nothing to do with marriage rights. This is not exactly rocket science.

Quote:
All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.


Saying it twice doesn't make what you're saying any stronger.


And frankly, neither does saying it a couple more times.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Aug 28 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I didn't make people view those things as a scary boogeyman Joph.

So what? I didn't make up terrorists but if I start telling people that allowing a religious bookstore will lead to Islamic terrorist cells in the strip mall, it's sure as **** me trying to scare people with crap.

Quote:
I just (correctly) point out that by removing the restrictions within our marriage laws that currently exclude same *** couples, we're also removing the restrictions that currently exclude those other things.

All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.

Quote:
But those merits will be much stronger than they are today. No one will be able to argue that we shouldn't allow siblings to marry since they might have children, because you've already argued that having or not having children has nothing to do with marriage rights. This is not exactly rocket science.

Congratulations on proving how little you understand the arguments about SSM.

Quote:
Saying it twice doesn't make what you're saying any stronger.

It doesn't need to be any stronger since it already demolishes your arguments.

Edited, Aug 28th 2012 6:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#293 Aug 28 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I didn't make people view those things as a scary boogeyman Joph.

So what? I didn't make up terrorists but if I start telling people that allowing a religious bookstore will lead to Islamic terrorist cells in the strip mall, it's sure as **** me trying to scare people with crap.


That's a pretty crappy analogy though. Unless you're arguing that people will fight for sibling marriage and polygamy out of hatred for homosexuals. Which seems kinda... silly.

A better example would be to say that passing a law making it legal for terrorists to blow up bookstores they find offensive will pave the way for laws which allow them to legally blow up other businesses they find offensive to. Because why make an exception for bookstores, right?

Or perhaps an example would be saying that a law requiring women to be covered from head to toe in the name of modesty might be followed with additional laws like barring them from appearing in public without a male family member. Because once you've decided that it's ok to limit a woman's freedom in the name of modesty, why limit that to just clothing?


It's not like I invented the concept of legal precedent Joph. It's only what our system is largely based on. Certainly, our courts are. And legislation (or at least what is allowable legislation) follows the same principle.


Quote:
Quote:
But those merits will be much stronger than they are today. No one will be able to argue that we shouldn't allow siblings to marry since they might have children, because you've already argued that having or not having children has nothing to do with marriage rights. This is not exactly rocket science.

Congratulations on proving how little you understand the arguments about SSM.


I understand the arguments *for* having the state be involved in marriage in the first place. Unless you can make a coherent argument against siblings getting married that doesn't involve the potential for procreation? Can you? Our laws are not just arbitrary Joph. They have (or should have) a reason for being. I know you want to pretend that we just passed them because we felt like it or something, but that's pretty darn moronic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#294 Aug 28 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
601 posts
Please gbaji, I don't think you have ever once (at least not in the few years I've been lurking here) made an apt analogy. For the love of god, please stop trying.
#295 Aug 28 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
I'm fine with polygamists and the guy who wants to marry a park bench pointing to same *** marriage while arguing for their cause. I'm not fine with blocking homosexual couples their rights because you (gbaji) are afraid that they will try to use it for their own cause.

Edit: precident, that's the word I couldn't think of. If the next group to try to fight for marriage rights involves consenting adults, then yes, this would set a precident. Just like allowing interracial couples set a precident for same *** marriage.



So what...?

Edited, Aug 28th 2012 8:39pm by Belkira
#296 Aug 28 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's a pretty crappy analogy though.

That's okay, raving about incest is a pretty crappy argument against SSM.

Quote:
I understand the arguments *for* having the state be involved in marriage in the first place.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Go ahead and cry now that I just laughed at you and how it must mean I have no response. I'm sure everyone here will say "Wow! Joph must have never debated THAT point before!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Aug 28 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
I'm fine with polygamists and the guy who wants to marry a park bench pointing to same *** marriage while arguing for their cause.

I'm fine with it as well. It's just that there's reasons for denying those marriages that are specific to those marriages and even if you can find one related aspect, it doesn't change all the other problems.

Pretend (and this isn't directed at you, Bel) I work in a restaurant and come up with the brilliant idea to serve rabbit. I go to the chef, "Hey! We should serve rabbit!"
"Why?"
"Because it's delicious!"
"Well, sure but people won't like the idea of eating rabbit and it's expensive to buy and full of tiny bones so it's not a good fit for us."
"But we can give it a non-rabbity name like Easter Chicken and I knows a guy who raises them cheap and we'll make enough money to hire a guy to debone them for the customers. Come on, this stuff is hella delicious and we should serve it!" (I'm really excited about rabbit)
"Ok, fine. I'm convinced."

So now we're serving rabbit for the main reason that it's delicious after having solved the problems. Three other people come in...
"We should serve panda! It's delicious!"
"We should serve pufferfish! It's delicious!"
"We should serve unicorn! It's delicious!"

"But panda are endangered and illegal to serve, pufferfish are poisonous and unicorns are imaginary. None of those are good idea."
"But it's delicious and you serve rabbit because it's delicious so now you HAVE to serve panda and pufferfish and unicorn!! You have no choice because the slippery slope demands it!

And this is why every restaurant that serves rabbit also serves panda, pufferfish and unico--- oh, wait, no they don't. Because finding one shared aspect doesn't actually mean you're going to ignore every other problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Aug 28 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Belkira wrote:
I'm fine with polygamists and the guy who wants to marry a park bench pointing to same *** marriage while arguing for thrift cause. I'm not fine with blocking homosexual couples their rights because you (gbaji) are afraid that they will try to use it for their own cause.


Huh? That's not why I hold the position I hold. Don't mistake me pointing out that the removal of the restrictions denying *** couples marriage will also allow other forms of marriage as my own argument on the issue. I'm just pointing out that those who do use that as an argument do have a valid point. It's not a slippery slope fallacy as many claim.


I oppose extending our marriage statuses to include *** couples because I believe that the status exists for a reason. That reason being to encourage heterosexual couples to marry, so that if they have children together they'll do so while bound to a state defined and enforced marriage contract. It's worth the state doing this because the socio-economic advantages to a society with as low a rate of children born to unwed mothers as possible is greater than the cost. But it only makes sense to apply this to couples who might procreate outside of such a marriage contract if it did not exist. If every couple capable of procreation always got married prior to procreating, there would be no need for the state to involve itself in marriage at all.

Similarly, since same *** couples as a group cannot procreate, there is no need for the state to involve itself in their relationships. They're free to marry in the traditional sense, but there is no reason at all to apply the state marriage status to them.


I don't hold this position because I hate gays, or want to infringe their rights. My reasoning in this case is no different than the reason why I might oppose giving every driver a handicapped placard, or everyone a foodstamp card, or giving everyone a free pony. I also don't have a problem with denying a blind person a drivers license, or denying non-blind people seeing eye dogs. Each status our government creates, and the effects they have, must have a specific purpose for existing. And the application of those things should be consistent with that purpose. Just arguing that it would be nice to have a puppy isn't a good reason for the government to hand them out. But that's more or less exactly the argument *for* SSM. That blind guy got a free puppy, so I should get one too! Sorry. I don't buy that argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#299 Aug 28 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
You're just looking for a reason to run some bunny rabbits over with your lawn mower again, Joph. Not cool, man.
#300 Aug 28 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's not why I hold the position I hold.
You don't hold a side. If this were a board dominated by conservatives, you'd be spending all your time pointing out the flaws in their arguments instead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#301 Aug 28 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
You're just looking for a reason to run some bunny rabbits over with your lawn mower again, Joph. Not cool, man.

I'm not sayin' nothin', I'm jus' sayin' that if you needs some rabbits, I knows a guy whose can getchu some rabbits....
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 75 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (75)