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
*****
19,942 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
******
31,593 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
******
28,224 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
******
43,650 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
*****
16,288 posts
TOASTERS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
#260 Aug 27 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,254 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!
*****
14,847 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
******
21,717 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
*****
16,288 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
******
43,650 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
******
30,643 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
Alma wrote:
So, in other words, you just don't like it?


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.

Alma wrote:
Your assumption of Sarah becoming some sort of a *** worker is no different than people assuming homosexuality will lead into p-philia or some other sexual distortion. Although either may happen, there is no correlation between the two. So, what if Tom and Sarah are relatively at the same maturity level? What is the scenario where Tom isn't taking advantage of Sarah? 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?


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 fucks her.

Alma wrote:


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

Alma wrote:
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.

Oh before I forget.. it's on page 14. The amount of effort you're spending talking to me far exceeds the amount of effort of just reading post 14. heh, your choice.


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. Coward.

Gbaji wrote:
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?


I don't really care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't care if two relatives want to get married (provided they don't have biological children). Polygamy doesn't really bother me either.

But I'm not going to argue for legalizing incest or polygamy & feel that the laws that cover them are fine as they are. Other people can try & make those arguments if they want too.

Gbaji wrote:
Why are those cases "wrong", but not *** marriage?


I think incest is wrong if its predatory & biological children are involved, but if its two consenting adults without biological kids between them, I don't find it "wrong" even if I personally wouldn't choose to do it. I feel pretty much same way about Polygamy, except they can have kids.
Gbaji wrote:

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
.

Using that logic, if I wanted to exclude a group (homosexuals) from having *** I would also be making an argument for banning vanilla ***. I'm sure THAT'S the intention of any sodomy laws, isn't 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


#267 Aug 28 2012 at 3:45 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 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.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#268 Aug 28 2012 at 4:45 AM Rating: Decent
Alma wrote:
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.


I don't have a problem with it if she is able to consent. If she's not old (mature) enough then she can't consent, so she'd be abused/taken advantage of/exploited regardless of whether or not she was fucking a 15 or a 35 year old. A sexually abused girl has a much higher chance of developing unhealthy attitudes towards ***. I think a 15 year old ******* a 35 year old has a MUCH higher chance of developing these unhealthy attitudes, but at the same time I can't say that every 15 year old that ever ****** a 35 year old throughout history wasn't in a healthy relationship. I think Courtney Stodden & her husband are odd and I certainly wouldn't have given my 16 year old daughter permission to marry the very creepy dude from the X-Files, but I can't rule out ALL marriages like that because it is possible that they could possibly be healthy, ya know?

I'm done discussing kiddie *** with you now, thanks.

Alma wrote:
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.


I'd like you to refute the fact that MOST of the health risks associated with **** ***, in your link, don't also apply to vaginal ***. STDs, tearing, cancer (cervical, from HPV) all also apply to vaginal ***, don't they?

By applying the same safety precautions as with vaginal *** (& some extra lobe) **** *** can be enjoyed by anyone safely. Much like the ******, the **** is a muscle & with practice can accommodate larger & larger objects. Ask Goatse if you don't believe me.

Still a coward.
____________________________
"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
*****
16,288 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
******
43,650 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
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Alma thinks
Same reply as to 'Alma's logic."


He doesn't think; he reacts to external stimuli.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#273 Aug 28 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 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
****
4,041 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.
#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
******
43,650 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
******
21,717 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
*****
15,905 posts
..
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#284 Aug 28 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Can we ban stupid yet?
No, but you could utilize the ignore function.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
*****
11,956 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
******
31,593 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
******
21,717 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
******
28,224 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
Avatar
****
8,972 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?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#291 Aug 28 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 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
******
31,593 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
**
599 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
******
30,643 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
******
31,593 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
******
30,643 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
******
43,650 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: 48 All times are in CDT
Sandinmygum, Anonymous Guests (47)