LBGT TerrorismFollow

This isn't an answer. This is a proposal of me asking a different question. Key words "Instead" and "can".

Given the fact that he said "Ok, so that's actually my original response " contradicts his previous statement, "I've answered the "Marrying toasters/cats/kids" strawman enough times already. Go back and re-read my answers and pretend I'm saying them now." And that's ignoring the fact that I didn't mention a toasters/cats/kids strawman.

That's a response, not an answer. Red isn't answer to how old you old. I asked you a very specific question and you responded with a suggestion.

You really can't be such a sore loser.... You initially implied that I didn't see any struggle as a civil rights unless there was slavery, which is evident that you didn't read my post. That's why you responded with "cats/toasters/kids", because you were referencing to a completely different argument. Now you're trying to pretend that you somehow switched arguments in between responses...

I'm not sure if you think stating that your response was an answer is supposed to make me think that you answered my question, but the reality of you not answering the question remains.

No where in that statement did you answer my question, you proposed a different question. Do you not know what the word "instead" means? Let me help you out.



I call you a sore loser because that's what you are. Lately, when you get "in a corner", you say "eh", "oh well" or some other lame cop out. In all cases, you will spend time repeating yourself, then all of the sudden, you don't have the time to repeat yourself, even though you continue to do so.

Your comment of several times was in reference to toaster love as said in the same sentence. So by "toaster" you meant "aboriginals"? Interesting.....

Note: My posts are this long not for you, but for the other readers who don't know what's going on.

Holy Crap! This thread went south fast.

I.. Um... Claim victory in this thread. Cause I won. Yes. That's it! Magic pixie dust declares me the winnar! Yay!

"lately" vs "in all cases". One is absolute and one isn't. Yet another example of your comprehension failure. You're really not helping your case.

Ok, humor me more.. Explain to me how your response answers my question. If you were serious, which you aren't, then the only other logical explanation is that you misunderstood my question as you have demonstrated as such in your previous post.

That's entirely possible. I still claim victory though. At this point, it's just as productive, right?

By a "better answer" do you mean "an answer"? Your own statement implies that you didn't answer my question because it was worded wrong. When in reality, I worded my question to make a point that would become apparent if you actually answered the question.

So, when I said that there was no difference between Black civil rights and women's rights, the trails of tears, Japanese Americans during WWII, early European immigrants, etc/ in reference to civil rights, the fact that you inferred "slavery was a requirement in order to be called a civil rights" was at fault of me?

Ok, let me rephrase it again..

If A = B and B = C, how does A not equal C? Please explain.

Yes it does. It's exactly the same basis. If you think not, please explain how it isn't. You're just proving my point....

That doesn't explain how it doesn't match my question because I didn't define A,B or C. A could be "Native American", B could be "U.S aboriginals" and C could be "American Indian". In that scenario, A does equal B. It's your job to explain to me how it doesn't match my question.

YET ANOTHER example of your poor comprehension. I didn't ask you to create an argument for me. I asked you to explain how my previous abbreviated question didn't match my original question. You claimed that my abbreviated question didn't match because A != B. That isn't on my behalf because you're the one making the accusation, unless you're down with making statements with no substance. If that's the case, then I was right all along.

.

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs *** workplace discrimination or *** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts *** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church *** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 9:24am by Jophiel

That beat you struggle with, it's the collective head pounding on a wall.

You're singing along?

Boots'n'cats'n'boots'n'cats.

I'm arguing against what others say. That's what people compare to. Arip's post was VERY general and not specific to marriage in any sense imaginable.

So, you agree that there is no comparison between US Black civil rights and homosexual civil rights?
That's a start..

So, now let's compare SSM laws vs miscegenation. There is no comparison here as well. The only similarities are the fundamental necessities that make them discrimination, but the type of discrimination and the reasons are completely different.

As I said, miscegenation is an attack on restrictions adhering to the fundamental union of marriage (man and a woman) to prevent mixed children and preserve a specific "pure" race (a mentality that is still blatant in East Asia). Furthermore, it wasn't and still isn't a common practice ( Black/white marriages) in comparison to other marriage percentages. Most people tend to marry people of their own race.

While SSM is an attack on redefining the fundamental union of marriage (man and a woman). When and if appealed, it will be taken advantage by a large percentage of same *** couples as it is the primary concern.

It goes back to my previous statement, if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?

if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?



So, if Obamacare gets approved, then obviously everyone must agree with it and it's absolute. If abortion becomes illegal AGAIN, the obviously abortion is evil and everyone will cave in and support it, because deep down inside, they also believe it.

According to your logic, SSM shouldn't be recognized because currently the government doesn't recognize it. They made their decision, so why are you fighting? It's not "right" until the court agrees with you? So, when the tables are turned will you believe the same or will you think that it's now "absolute"?

If this nation weren't so divided on issues then you might would have had a point.

B isn't closer to A than C in your example. Unless you're in Bizarro world.

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 5:33am by Almalieque

Maybe alma should invest in a measuring tape. that and basic counting skills. don't worry, we'll wait.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 10:52pm by Xsarus

Looking in from the outside it's wonderful the way so many Americans are still subconsciously racist. Especially so many African Americans, who seem to like to ghettoise themselves. Watching TV with black only performers. Watching/listening to black only musicians. Deriding other blacks who swim in the mainstream culture, or who are high achievers in areas outside a narrow band of "acceptable" black fields of activity. And not looking outside their own race for romance.

In Australia there are a heck of a lot of whites. But of all our many many minorities, the majority of them wind up in relationships outside their own ethnic/racial/subculture/religious group. Including getting into relationships with whites, or with ethnics that are their "enemies" back in the "home country". A lot of first generation migrants are married-in. Second generation Australians who come from insular ethnicities and who have been sent to private religious schools also tend to marry in. But as soon as a child gets sent to a non-religious, or state school, the whole marrying-in thing flies out the window, except for coincidental proximity occurrences.

I'm not saying Australia is free of racism, because we're not. A lot of us are very racist. But we seem to be doing a lot better on the issues of no-go zones, and cross-race relationships and families. I seem to remember a question on our census that asks: "list up to 5 of your national heritages." Most of us have grandparents that span wildly diverse nationalities or national heritages. Even I, who is white as white can be, got to pick and choose amongst my most relevant rival Western European and British heritages.

There's a reason why you didn't reply to my second example which also took into account that interpretation of the "B is closer to A than C".

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 8:08am by TirithRR