Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#252 Aug 27 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eh, trolling is only really trolling when you're distracting from the overall board. While inane and pointless, it's not as though it's taking up oxygen from the rest of the forum these days.

I just take it at face value that people are however stupid as they present themselves. Assuming "Oh, he's not really like THAT" is how we wind up with some of these Congresscritters.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 12:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253Almalieque, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 6:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry. My "goal" was to not go in circles. Maybe you misunderstood my intent. It takes you an average of 2 to 3 posts to answer one question. You answered your beef with the 35/15 couple. Now you have to answer why you think there is a difference. You answered your guestimated results, but you did not say why one ends up one way and the other doesn't. You've made some comments, but you haven't backed up any of your accusations. You're doing worse than what the FRC is/was doing. At least they tried to prove the correlation. If someone made similar types of accusations for homosexuals, you would lose your lid.
#254 Aug 27 2012 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Considering all he does is posts the complete opposite of whatever someone else posts, even the occasional egging on isn't worth the effort. It's like the Argument sketch Monty Python, except without any humor and no one has the decency to get hit in the head with a mallet, though the headache still remains.

Just like gbaji, except g-man has just enough genial presonality that it's almost tolerable, if not entirely reasonable.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#255 Aug 27 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Belkira wrote:
The sad part is that almost everyone here who is pro-SSM has said that some discriminations about who can marry are necessary, but this one is an unjust discrimination.


Not even going to attempt to figure out where Alma's going with this, but I feel the need to ask why you believe that this one is an unjust discrimination, but not other restrictions? Put more directly: Do you think that those who fought for the right of mixed race couples to marry also felt at the time that the thing they were fighting against was an "unjust discrimination", but that other discriminations (like same *** couples) were just?

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". Which leads us to a valid slippery slope situation. I believe that if you are going to construct an argument of this nature, you need to be able to clearly state what delineates an unjust discrimination from a just one. But what I've found (on this and many other issues) is that most people don't do this.

And whether you agree with the argument or not, the case for procreative potential of a couple as the delineation at least provides some objective means to make that determination. Absent some alternative, you really are just arbitrarily deciding what is just and what is not.


Omegavegeta wrote:
So here we are again. My argument is that as long as its between two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it, so it can't be "wrong" to be ***. What's your explanation for why you think being *** is "wrong"?



Doesn't two consenting adults include two adult siblings? Or an parent and their adult child? So.... What's your explanation for why you think either of those cases is "wrong"? Or, if you don't think they are, then why not fight for their rights to marry as well? And if not that, then isn't it perfectly correct for someone to point to one of those other cases as a valid slippery slope result of the fight for *** marriage?

And ****. You didn't mention it, but why constrain ourselves to two adults? Why not three? Or more? Why are those cases "wrong", but not *** marriage?


The point I'm trying to get at is that if your argument for including a group in some category doesn't also include a consistent rationale for continuing to exclude other groups, then your argument is effectively for including those other groups as well. And it's absolutely not fallacious to point this out.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 6:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#256 Aug 27 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,245 posts
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.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#257 Aug 27 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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
(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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#258 Aug 27 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
"CHANGE IT ALL AT ONCE OR DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING AT ALL!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#259 Aug 27 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
TOASTERS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
#260 Aug 27 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Nadenu wrote:
TOASTERS ARE PEOPLE TOO!


Screenshot


It's a proven fact.

Edit: Looking at this picture they are apparently blanket molesters as well.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 11:16pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#261 Aug 27 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,936 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
TOASTERS ARE PEOPLE TOO!


Screenshot


It's a proven fact.


I saw some Brave Little Toaster rule 34. I think it involved the Lamp, the Blanket, and the Toaster.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#262 Aug 27 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Edit: Looking at this picture they are apparently blanket molesters as well.


Nah, he clearly had a thing for the vacum. The radio told me.


That was one of my favorite kiddie movies as a not-quiet-young-adult.
____________________________
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.


#263 Aug 27 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
The Brave Little Toaster rocked. I'd marry him. When he came of age, of course. I'm not a freak.
#264 Aug 27 2012 at 11:31 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Nadenu wrote:
The Brave Little Toaster rocked. I'd marry him. When he came of age, of course. I'm not a freak.
You're too late. After years of shame and hiding, he and his lover committed suicide.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#265 Aug 28 2012 at 1:42 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 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.


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
(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.


These two posts sum up my answer to gbaji quite well.

Thank you both.
#266 Aug 28 2012 at 1:53 AM Rating: Decent
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
"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


#267 Aug 28 2012 at 3:45 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Omega wrote:
If Sarah's too young (immature) to consent, I'm against it. If she's not & her parents agree to it, then its as ok as can be. Again, I urge you to google Courtney Stodden for an example of a child bride & you tell me if you think she's not warped because of it.


So, in other words, you don't like it.. Your answer rests upon "if" and there will always be an "if" in EVERY relationship, yet you support this ban. I don't need to google Courtney Stodden , because for every Courtney Stodden, there's at least one grown woman who was mentally and/or physically abused. If you don't like it, just man up and say so and stop hiding behind all of these fallacious reasoning.

Omega wrote:

If Sarah's too young (immature) to consent, I'm against it. If she's not & her parents agree to it, then its as ok as can be regardless of any more hypotheticals you tack on. If Sarah can't consent, she's a victim regardless of who ***** her.


Way to not answer the question.

How is he taking advantage of Sarah any differently than John? In other words, how does Tom taking advantage of Sarah leads her to becoming a *** worker, but not John?

Just say that there is no difference and you just don't like it; however, if everyone is agreement, then you feel that it's none of your business.

Omega wrote:


Replace "****" with ****** & the risks are virtually identical. Any argument to ban ****-*** using "health risks" also applies to vanilla ***, so that argument goes nowhere.


Well, obviously you didn't read it. If it were that simple, I wouldn't have posted it. Besides, who thinks that way? "****/******, really the same thing if you think about it"? So, that argument wouldn't apply to vanilla ***. In either case, **** *** applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

#268 Aug 28 2012 at 4:45 AM Rating: Decent
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
"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


#269 Aug 28 2012 at 5:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Alma thinks no one should get married because there's a chance in every single relationship that someone could get hurt. And we can't have that!
#270 Aug 28 2012 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
Nadenu wrote:
Alma thinks no one should get married because there's a chance in every single relationship that someone could get hurt. And we can't have that!


Don't forget, until nothing is discriminated against its ok to discriminate against teh gays!
____________________________
"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


#271 Aug 28 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Alma thinks
Same reply as to 'Alma's logic."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#272 Aug 28 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Alma thinks
Same reply as to 'Alma's logic."


He doesn't think; he reacts to external stimuli.
#273 Aug 28 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Like Oleander.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#274 Aug 28 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
I'm really enjoying the "homosex hurts because the **** tears and you can get diseases!" angle.
#275 Aug 28 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
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
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#276 Aug 28 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Guenny wrote:
I'm really enjoying the "homosex hurts because the **** tears and you can get diseases!" angle.
Because straight people never have **** ***, ever. It's only the gays who do icky things like that.
____________________________
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 88 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (88)