Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#127 Aug 23 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Holy crap did you guys go off on a tangent! IMO, the issue of calling the FRC a hate group is absurd. Holding positions you don't agree with does not make you a hate group, and labeling a group as such for those reasons is really an attempt to quiet them (suppress their speech if you will). We live in a democracy, and the reality is that in every single state that has ever actually allowed the people to vote on the issues that the FRC champions, they've sided with them.

We normally assign the label of "hate group" to those who participate in "hate speech". And that is generally defined as speech designed to incite violent action against some other group. What's interesting in this case (and seemingly missed in the whole discussion) is that the Southern Poverty Law Center matches that definition much more than the FRC does at this point. This guy was clearly acting in response to their own statements about the FRC. ****. The Chick-Fil-A food demonstrates this clearly. It was the SPLC which made the argument that CFA was anti-*** because they contributed to the FRC, and the FRC was a hate group.

So their speech inspired a direct act of violence against another group. Isn't that hate speech? And doesn't that make them a hate group?

Oh. And since I can't completely avoid a tangent:

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.


While the clear objective was to keep white folks "pure", the actual laws were more correctly about whites not being able to marry blacks, or native americans, or pacific islanders, or asians, or any ethnic group which wasn't considered "white". Those other groups could intermarry freely. Yes. Pedantic point to be sure, but from a legal point of view, the restriction most limited white options for marrying from a cross-ethnic point of view.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Aug 23 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I disagree but I don't give enough of a fuck about it to go round in circles. So, sure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Aug 23 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Writing this extremely tired.. so caution.. more grammatical errors than normal..

Omega V wrote:
I wasn't making the argument that "in the past we gave rights to ethnic minorities because of discrimination, we should do the same for homosexuals.", I was stating that this particular argument is only apt if the parties involved are two consenting adults of legal age. You can't use the argument that "if we "legalize" (give equal right to) homosexuals then we also have to legalize child love/bestiality" because neither child love/bestiality are between consenting adults of legal age. My furry analogy is apt, provided said furries are consenting adults of legal age. Get it?


You are not understanding....Let me try this again.

The "rationale" is in reference to using oppressed group A as a basis for change for oppressed group B. The question is if that's ok to do or does each group defend their own progression? The common trend has been that it's ok when comparing to ethnic minorities and women, but a "slippery slope" when compared to homosexual gains.

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite ***.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite ***". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.

Omega V wrote:
We live in a representative Democracy, & while I certainly disagree with many different things my local reps have voted for/made into law, it is my responsibility to vote candidates in whom best represent me. I can tell you right now, every candidate I've ever voted for hasn't made legalized child love part of their platform, & I'm very much happy with the current laws on the books in regards to underage *** in Mass. Anyway, associating homosexual rights with child lover rights is a false equivalent, since 15 year olds are under the age of consent- which I agree with.


Another popular contradiction among homosexual supporters. They hide behind current laws saying "it's the law, it's the law", all while trying to CHANGE the law to accept SSM. The point is that there is no objective and/or universal definition of a child, so therefore, it would be hypocritical to morally object a couple in one place, but morally accept the SAME couple in another place. You either think it's right or wrong. If your opinion changes based on the legality of the land, then you have no moral opinion.

Omega V wrote:
You have been told by myself & others why it is frowned upon for a 35 year old to @#%^ a 15 year old. If you disagree with that, by all means create a thread advocating legalizing child love. I will no longer entertain the possibility that rights of child lovers are somehow equivalent to homosexual rights because, as mentioned in this post & previous ones, two consenting adult homosexuals of legal age boning harms NO ONE while child lovers HARM children.


That's because you're not understanding what is being presented to you. I'm not comparing homosexuality with child lovers. I'm comparing your bigotry towards child lovers with the bigotry towards homosexuality. You have not proven any reason why it's ok for a 15 year to be in a sexual relationship with another 15 year old, but not a 35 year old. You have not provided any logical argument to support how a 35 year old is any more "dangerous" for a 15 year old than another 15 year old. Matter of fact, I can list more advantageous reasons for the 35 year old over the 15 year old

The bottom line is that it freaks you out. You think it's disgusting, so you support the ban without any supporting data for your claims. That reason of thinking is NO DIFFERENT than some of the thinking toward homosexuality. You accept it in one sense, but reject it in another sense.

Omega V wrote:
Yes there is. Just because it varies from State to State doesn't mean there isn't a solid definition of a child, it just means that the definition fluctuates by about 4 years from State to State.

Did you read what you just said? IF and only if there were an evaluation for each person within that gap would that be a "solid definition". Not only does it vary among ages in the states, it also varies within countries.

Omega V wrote:
Using that logic, I could say it's wrong for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA because in NH you have to be 16 to get your learner's permit. I would be wrong though, as it is PERFECTLY legal for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA. I could disagree & say that I think 15 is too young for a learners permit, but that doesn't make me right it just means I have an opinion on the subject.


Except no one is making a conceptual argument on when a person is allowed to drive. People just accept whatever random age the local law says. They may not like it, but there is no fundamental belief that a child is being denied their rights to drive. That's not to say that there aren't people who follow that thought, but that's the overall difference.

If you are a parent and you fundamentally believe that children shouldn't drive until they are 15, then regardless of the law, you will prevent your child from driving until s/he is 15. If you preach that, but then allow your child to drive at 14 because the law at your new state allows 14 year olds to drive, then you have gone down the lane of hypocrisy.

It's not about what you like about the law. It's about YOUR fundamental belief and action on the concept.

Omega V wrote:

If it makes you feel better, Imagining two 15 year olds banging every day would also creep me out as I am not a child lover. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying it's creepy to Imagine.


I didn't say anything about imagining that. I'm pointing out the difference that there are no differences in those two situations except people think one is "icky".

Omega V wrote:
Both a 15 year old man & a 35 year old man can be sexual predators, sure, but I'm unwilling to want to change current age of consent laws as I believe that doing so would probably increase the number of adult sexual assaults on children.


So you approve of making laws that might unfairly target one group in support of preventing future atrocities?

Omega V wrote:
Prove me wrong. I've stated my hypothesis, answered every one of your questions, & you're still too cowardly to tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong outside of in the past saying "it would creep you out" to have to shower with a *** man. You turned that into an argument for same *** showers, which is yet another false equivalent.

I believe it's possible that you're not a bigot & still think homosexuality is wrong, I just find it unlikely given your use of bigoted arguments against homosexuals (Equating them to child lovers & bestiality practitioners, for instance.).


Wait, wait, wait.. so you're somehow able to remember false quotes that I never made, but you can't remember the answer to your question that has been stated several times before? How convenient.

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.

Omega V wrote:
I do understand that you think being homosexual is wrong. I do not understand why you think homosexuality is wrong. If you could provide a link as to why you think being homosexual is "wrong", please do so. If you can't, you can remain a coward. I remain open to the possibility that it is possible to think being homosexual is wrong & not be a bigot, but in your case I find it unlikely.


I've already said that your "coward" attacks are null as I already pointed you to where I have answered your questions. I'm not going to look for it, you can. If you're too lazy to look for it, then you obviously don't want to know that badly and can wait. There are 2 prop. 8 threads and 2 DADT threads. Out of those 4 threads, I know I specified it at least twice.




Edited, Aug 24th 2012 3:21am by Almalieque
#130 Aug 23 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#131 Aug 23 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite ***.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite ***". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.


If we lived in fantasy land where it wasn't already explicitly illegal for children to marry or explicitly illegal to practice polygamy, you'd have a point. Just like you would have had a point with your various showers arguments if showers weren't already separated by gender. My point is, we don't actually live in that fantasy land so you aren't actually making any point at all. Giving equal rights to homosexuals will not lead to legalizing polygamy or child loving, as there are already laws against them. Equating homosexuals with those groups is offensive & distracts from the issue at hand.

Homosexuals are people just like you or me. Some of them are jerks, just like some heterosexuals are, the only real difference is that for some reason (nature, nurture, or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to members of the same ***. There is no harm in this, provided they are consenting adults. Any current laws against homosexuality are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. This is a fact that society is slowly coming around too. Your opinion, it seems, is that it is wrong to be homosexual.

I disagree, but I know you have a reason for having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. What I've never been unable to get out of you is what that reason is. What happened last time, is we went round in round. I asked the question, you said you already said it, I asked where, you said where, I responded to that post, you said I didn't understand it, I asked you to explain it, you said you already did, I asked you to fill out a madlib since I was "too stupid" to understand your "explanations", you wouldn't, I called you a coward, & here we are again.

Already, in this thread, you said if I answered your questions you'd answer mine. I've gone out of my way to answer every single question asked of me & you've now said this:

Alma wrote:

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.


You've moved the goal posts. You're derailing. You're avoiding the question. You're a ****ing coward on an internet message board.

And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#132 Aug 24 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,667 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?
In the same sense as the Geek Squad from BestBuy being hackers. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Aug 24 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Samira wrote:
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.

shhhh, his whole argument about *** acceptance is based on his opinion of right and wrong.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#134 Aug 24 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Writing this extremely tired.. so caution.. more grammatical errors than normal..

Omega V wrote:
I wasn't making the argument that "in the past we gave rights to ethnic minorities because of discrimination, we should do the same for homosexuals.", I was stating that this particular argument is only apt if the parties involved are two consenting adults of legal age. You can't use the argument that "if we "legalize" (give equal right to) homosexuals then we also have to legalize child love/bestiality" because neither child love/bestiality are between consenting adults of legal age. My furry analogy is apt, provided said furries are consenting adults of legal age. Get it?


You are not understanding....Let me try this again.

The "rationale" is in reference to using oppressed group A as a basis for change for oppressed group B. The question is if that's ok to do or does each group defend their own progression? The common trend has been that it's ok when comparing to ethnic minorities and women, but a "slippery slope" when compared to homosexual gains.

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite ***.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite ***". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.

Omega V wrote:
We live in a representative Democracy, & while I certainly disagree with many different things my local reps have voted for/made into law, it is my responsibility to vote candidates in whom best represent me. I can tell you right now, every candidate I've ever voted for hasn't made legalized child love part of their platform, & I'm very much happy with the current laws on the books in regards to underage *** in Mass. Anyway, associating homosexual rights with child lover rights is a false equivalent, since 15 year olds are under the age of consent- which I agree with.


Another popular contradiction among homosexual supporters. They hide behind current laws saying "it's the law, it's the law", all while trying to CHANGE the law to accept SSM. The point is that there is no objective and/or universal definition of a child, so therefore, it would be hypocritical to morally object a couple in one place, but morally accept the SAME couple in another place. You either think it's right or wrong. If your opinion changes based on the legality of the land, then you have no moral opinion.

Omega V wrote:
You have been told by myself & others why it is frowned upon for a 35 year old to @#%^ a 15 year old. If you disagree with that, by all means create a thread advocating legalizing child love. I will no longer entertain the possibility that rights of child lovers are somehow equivalent to homosexual rights because, as mentioned in this post & previous ones, two consenting adult homosexuals of legal age boning harms NO ONE while child lovers HARM children.


That's because you're not understanding what is being presented to you. I'm not comparing homosexuality with child lovers. I'm comparing your bigotry towards child lovers with the bigotry towards homosexuality. You have not proven any reason why it's ok for a 15 year to be in a sexual relationship with another 15 year old, but not a 35 year old. You have not provided any logical argument to support how a 35 year old is any more "dangerous" for a 15 year old than another 15 year old. Matter of fact, I can list more advantageous reasons for the 35 year old over the 15 year old

The bottom line is that it freaks you out. You think it's disgusting, so you support the ban without any supporting data for your claims. That reason of thinking is NO DIFFERENT than some of the thinking toward homosexuality. You accept it in one sense, but reject it in another sense.

Omega V wrote:
Yes there is. Just because it varies from State to State doesn't mean there isn't a solid definition of a child, it just means that the definition fluctuates by about 4 years from State to State.

Did you read what you just said? IF and only if there were an evaluation for each person within that gap would that be a "solid definition". Not only does it vary among ages in the states, it also varies within countries.

Omega V wrote:
Using that logic, I could say it's wrong for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA because in NH you have to be 16 to get your learner's permit. I would be wrong though, as it is PERFECTLY legal for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA. I could disagree & say that I think 15 is too young for a learners permit, but that doesn't make me right it just means I have an opinion on the subject.


Except no one is making a conceptual argument on when a person is allowed to drive. People just accept whatever random age the local law says. They may not like it, but there is no fundamental belief that a child is being denied their rights to drive. That's not to say that there aren't people who follow that thought, but that's the overall difference.

If you are a parent and you fundamentally believe that children shouldn't drive until they are 15, then regardless of the law, you will prevent your child from driving until s/he is 15. If you preach that, but then allow your child to drive at 14 because the law at your new state allows 14 year olds to drive, then you have gone down the lane of hypocrisy.

It's not about what you like about the law. It's about YOUR fundamental belief and action on the concept.

Omega V wrote:

If it makes you feel better, Imagining two 15 year olds banging every day would also creep me out as I am not a child lover. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying it's creepy to Imagine.


I didn't say anything about imagining that. I'm pointing out the difference that there are no differences in those two situations except people think one is "icky".

Omega V wrote:
Both a 15 year old man & a 35 year old man can be sexual predators, sure, but I'm unwilling to want to change current age of consent laws as I believe that doing so would probably increase the number of adult sexual assaults on children.


So you approve of making laws that might unfairly target one group in support of preventing future atrocities?

Omega V wrote:
Prove me wrong. I've stated my hypothesis, answered every one of your questions, & you're still too cowardly to tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong outside of in the past saying "it would creep you out" to have to shower with a *** man. You turned that into an argument for same *** showers, which is yet another false equivalent.

I believe it's possible that you're not a bigot & still think homosexuality is wrong, I just find it unlikely given your use of bigoted arguments against homosexuals (Equating them to child lovers & bestiality practitioners, for instance.).


Wait, wait, wait.. so you're somehow able to remember false quotes that I never made, but you can't remember the answer to your question that has been stated several times before? How convenient.

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.

Omega V wrote:
I do understand that you think being homosexual is wrong. I do not understand why you think homosexuality is wrong. If you could provide a link as to why you think being homosexual is "wrong", please do so. If you can't, you can remain a coward. I remain open to the possibility that it is possible to think being homosexual is wrong & not be a bigot, but in your case I find it unlikely.


I've already said that your "coward" attacks are null as I already pointed you to where I have answered your questions. I'm not going to look for it, you can. If you're too lazy to look for it, then you obviously don't want to know that badly and can wait. There are 2 prop. 8 threads and 2 DADT threads. Out of those 4 threads, I know I specified it at least twice.




Edited, Aug 24th 2012 3:21am by Almalieque


There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim. No one is ever going to say to you "Wow, Alma, you sure opened my mind and now things make more sense!". Not here. I promise you. You'd be more successful chasing p*ssy.
#135 Aug 24 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Wow, talk about offering false hope.
____________________________
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

#136 Aug 24 2012 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
I'm encouraging him to seek outside interests. It's for the good of us all.
#137 Aug 24 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#138 Aug 24 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.


To be fair, to imply that by scrolling down I am skimming a post, means that everyone skims absolutely every post in every thread they scroll through.
#139 Aug 24 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're welcome to think so, I guess.

Yes, I tend to support reality. The law equally prevents both races from marrying each other, so there is no reason to think that one race is more disadvantaged than another unless you think one is inherently better than the other, which makes you a racist.

TirithRR wrote:
If you pretend that's not why they made the laws, you are being willfully ignorant. Looking back at them now and saying "Well, if we ignore the reasons why they did it, the law itself isn't that bad!" doesn't make much sense.


Except that wasn't what I was implying or saying. The reason why a law is created is only valid in discussions about why the law is created or the success or failure of that law. This discussion was over the EFFECTS of the law. WHY you created the law is irrelevant on the EFFECTS of the law.

You may have good intentions on creating a rule, but the end result may cause more harm than good. Would you say "well my intentions were good, so therefore law is good!"? Or would you say, "Well my intentions were good, but I see the negative effects outweigh the positive effects"?

Samira wrote:
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.


I told you why. My reasoning is no different than the current laws. I disagree with a 35 year old marrying an 18 year old for the same reasons why people disagree with a 35 year old marrying an 17 year old. I don't see that 18 year old any more mature than the 17 year old.

As the couple gets older, the age difference means less due to maturity reasons; however, the likelihood of a couple with a large age difference starting off as a facade increases dramatically as the age difference grows. To believe otherwise is naive, delusional and/or in denial. That is why I'm against it.
#140 Aug 24 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
That may explain why it's inadvisable. It does not explain why it's wrong.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Aug 24 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Subtle nuances are lost on Alma?! Color me shocked.

Also, I think calling someone a racist might be terrorism.
#142 Aug 24 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
To be fair, to imply that by scrolling down I am skimming a post, means that everyone skims absolutely every post in every thread they scroll through.


I didn't imply that by scrolling down you were skimming, i said that by quoting his entire post it implies you at least skimmed it. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#143 Aug 24 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Listen, I'm not saying that I've never read an Alma post, but clicking the "quote" checkbox and highlighting the text and putting spoiler tags on it is hardly "skimming". Regardless, you seem pretty butthurt about being the only sucker to fall into his tarp this time, and I'm not going to commiserate with you.
#144 Aug 24 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Guenny wrote:
Listen, I'm not saying that I've never read an Alma post, but clicking the "quote" checkbox and highlighting the text and putting spoiler tags on it is hardly "skimming". Regardless, you seem pretty butthurt about being the only sucker to fall into his tarp this time, and I'm not going to commiserate with you.


Too late, your quoting implies otherwise.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#145 Aug 24 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
You got me. I skimmed it. He lamented about how blue his balls were, and how as he ages his chance of tasting sweet young 18 year old p*ssy for free fades away with each passing year. Thanks for trolling him into that revelation, Omega. We couldn't have done it without you.
#146 Aug 24 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Belkira wrote:
Subtle nuances are lost on Alma?! Color me shocked.

Also, I think calling someone a racist might be terrorism.

You're right. Alma is a terrorist.
#147 Aug 24 2012 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.
You could all take a lesson from her book. At least she put his ******* post in spoiler tags so those of us who have Alma on ignore don't have to scroll past it.
____________________________
Banh
#148 Aug 24 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Guenny wrote:
You got me. I skimmed it. He lamented about how blue his balls were, and how as he ages his chance of tasting sweet young 18 year old p*ssy for free fades away with each passing year. Thanks for trolling him into that revelation, Omega. We couldn't have done it without you.


You're welcome. I'm here to help.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#149 Aug 25 2012 at 6:32 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Omega V wrote:
If we lived in fantasy land where it wasn't already explicitly illegal for children to marry or explicitly illegal to practice polygamy, you'd have a point. Just like you would have had a point with your various showers arguments if showers weren't already separated by gender. My point is, we don't actually live in that fantasy land so you aren't actually making any point at all.


Fantasy world? So, now you're using "tradition" as an argument? I thought we all agreed that tradition was not a good enough reason to solely argue for or against something. If that's so, isn't marriage traditionally between a man and a woman? Aren't there already existing laws explicitly against SSM?

Do you know anything about our history and the advancement of rights from "explicitly illegal" to "current laws"? I have relatives that lived through Jim Crow laws and they had relatives that lived through legal slavery times. I'm not a historian, but I'm sure the only people who "explicitly" had rights from the start were rich white men in this nation.

Now here you are, saying that we need to change marriage laws to include SSM, but every other law is already explicitly written and CAN NOT be changed! Who's the coward now? You're simply hiding behind laws.

You're so hypocritical, that you're losing track of all of your offenses. Besides the fact that changing the showers would only consist of changing signs, kind of like the "colored only" and "whites only" signs, (not some overly complicated and expensive task), you admit that there is logic to the shower arguments. Those arguments weren't made to persuade a change. I don't want a unisex shower. I was pointing out that the reasons why we segregate shows by *** are no different than the reasons against open homosexuality in the showers.

Omega V wrote:
Giving equal rights to homosexuals will not lead to legalizing polygamy or child loving, as there are already laws against them.


I didn't say that it would. What I have been saying is that your prejudice against those groups are no different than the same prejudice against homosexuality. Furthermore, you shouldn't get offended when people reference homosexuality as a basis or foundation for their argument as that's the same exact thing homosexual supporters do with women and ethnic minorities.

What I have said is that a poorly constructed argument, i.e. unintentional inclusive argument, will indeed pave the way for those changes. That's kind of how laws work. Do you think Black Americans were fighting for Somalians? Of course, not, they were fighting for themselves, but the result affected all people of all races. (Another example of how the reason why a law is created is irrelevant in discussing the effects of the law.)

Omega V wrote:
Homosexuals are people just like you or me. Some of them are jerks, just like some heterosexuals are, the only real difference is that for some reason (nature, nurture, or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to members of the same ***. There is no harm in this, provided they are consenting adults. Any current laws against homosexuality are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. This is a fact that society is slowly coming around too. Your opinion, it seems, is that it is wrong to be homosexual.


This is an example of a poorly constructed argument. Are you saying child lovers aren't people with the only real difference is for some reason (nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to younger people?

You have yet provided any reason on why it's any more wrong for a 15 year old to be in a relationship with a 35 year old as opposed to another 15 year old. The only thing that you have said was "Child lovers HURT them!". How do they hurt them any more or less than another 15 year old? How are 15 year olds in any more danger than another 35 year old? The second you engage in a relationship, you put yourself at risk of some form of harm and the age of the people does not change that.

Omega V wrote:
Already, in this thread, you said if I answered your questions you'd answer mine. I've gone out of my way to answer every single question asked of me & you've now said this: ........

You've moved the goal posts. You're derailing. You're avoiding the question. You're a @#%^ing coward on an internet message board.


Almalieque on post #85 wrote:
Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.

Answer my questions first, then we can talk.


Nice try again. Note the underline and bold, I said after closing up these other tangents. You may not know this, but you have to answer questions in order to be able to close up a tangent. Just because you answered questions, doesn't mean that we are at a mutual agreement.

You still haven't given any legitimate reason on why it's any more wrong for a 15 year old to be in a "serious" relationship with a 35 year old than a 15 year old.

You're continually hiding behind laws as an excuse against other sexualities while at the same time fighting to change the law to allow SSM.

You are still making comments as if I'm saying SSM will lead to other forms of marriage.

You have yet made the connection that I'm referencing the similarity in prejudice between homosexuals and child lovers, not the groups themselves.

These are just the things that immediately come to mind without me having to look anything up. You are a complete mess right now and you want to transition into another irrelevant topic?

Omega V wrote:
You're a @#%^ing coward on an internet message board.


You asked a question. I told you where to find it. It is already written. It hasn't left or gone anywhere. If you're too lazy to look it up, then so be it. You keep calling me a coward wont change anything. It will only give you this same response written ever so slightly differently.

I mean, aren't you a premium member? There's absolutely no reason for you not to be able find it.

Omega V wrote:
And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?


I'm not sure why you civilians always bring up the military as if you know what you're talking about. Unless you're currently serving, recently ETS'd or a high speed dependent, i.e. FRG leader, then you probably have no clue on the daily life of a Soldier. The media only shows basic training and war. They don't show the numerous formations. Showing up 10 mins early that results in "hurry up and wait". Safety briefs, Motorstable Mondays, Sergeant's Time, Family Time, Fun Runs, article 15's, DUI's, Training meetings, maintenance meetings, Command and Staff, OPORDs, the numerous follow on FRAGOs, etc.

Dealing with that crap on a daily basis is what MAKES you a SOLDIER.
#150 Aug 25 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Do you know anything about our history and the advancement of rights from "explicitly illegal" to "current laws"? I have relatives that lived through Jim Crow laws and they had relatives that lived through legal slavery times. I'm not a historian, but I'm sure the only people who "explicitly" had rights from the start were rich white men in this nation.

Unless you have exceptionally long loved relatives, I'm pretty sure you skipped a generation (or two, or three) in there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Aug 25 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
I've told you why I don't think homosexuality is wrong, you're unwilling or unable to communicate why you think it is.

So you're still a coward, Alma, nothings changed. Until you're willing to grow a pair I'm unwilling to do this dance again.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (76)